Crawford Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 1966

161 N.L.R.B. 989 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO. 989
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all records necessary for the determination of the amount
of backpay due under these recommendations.
(d) Post at its plant in Springfield , Missouri , copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 17, after being duly signed by the Respondent or its authorized
representatives , shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered
by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing , within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision , what steps it has taken to comply herewith.4
I In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words " the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further event that the Board ' s Order is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
* In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall
be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days from the
date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
Crawford Manufacturing Co., Inc. and Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America , AFL-CIO. Cases 17-CA-.615 and 17-RC-
4687. November 15, 1956
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 15, 1966, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose issued his Decision
in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. He also found that Respondent had not engaged in other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that such
allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to
the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the Gen-
eral Counsel filed cross-exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and
Members Jenkins and Zagoria].
161 NLRB No. 91.
990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiners' made
at the hearings and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.2
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the cross-exceptions, the briefs,
and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the Trial
Examiner's findings,3 conclusions, and recommendations, with the
following modifications.
1. Although the Trial Examiner found that employee Bibiano
Sanchez was laid off for discriminatory reasons, he found that
Respondent's failure to offer reinstatement to Sanchez at the time it
offered reinstatement to the other employees was not violative of the
Act. The Trial Examiner credited the testimony of Respondent's
i Trial Examiner A. Norman Somers was originally designated to be the Trial Examiner
in these cases and presided at the first 4 days of the hearing. Thereafter, he became ill,
and the Acting Chief Trial Examiner determined that Trial Examiner Somers had become
unavailable to the agency within the meaning of Section 5(c) of the Administrative
Procedure Act and designated Trial Examiner Vose to resume the hearing. Pursuant to an
agreement of the parties, a hearing de novo was not conducted with the exception that,
at the Respondent's request, the General Counsel recalled one witness, James R. Hayes,
who was examined de novo by all parties.
2The Respondent excepted to "the rulings of [the] Trial Examiner . that Respond-
ent was required to take as his own the witness of the General Counsel, through whom an
authorization card had been introduced, when the Respondent inquired into representations
made to the employee prior to the time of signing it. . . The Respondent asserts that
this ruling denied to Respondent "the constitutional right to cross-examination "
Although the Trial Examiner stated that the Respondent would have to take witnesses
for the General Counsel as his own if it wanted to make such inquiries, the effect of his
ruling was that Respondent would not be permitted to ask leading questions of such
witnesses until it had exhausted, by direct questions, their recollection of the circum-
stances under which they had signed authorization cards. Although this ruling restricted
Respondent's right to ask leading questions initially, the Respondent was not precluded
from inquiring into the circumstances under which the cards were obtained, and the
record reflects that Respondent did so inquire of many witnesses. Further, after the
recollection of a witness was exhausted, the Trial Examiner permitted Respondent to ask
leading questions. We believe that this ruling imposing a conditional limitation on the use
of leading questions was within the scope of the Trial Examiner's discretion and was not
erroneous . See Bryant Chucking Grinder Company, 160 NLRB 1526.
Moreover, such leading questions as proposed by Respondent are entitled to little proba-
tive weight in determining whether employees signing authorization cards were told before
signing that the cards were only for the purpose of obtaining an election. In N L.R.B. v.
Cumberland Shoe Corporation, 351 F.2d 917, 919 (C.A. 6), enfg. 144 NLRB 1268, the
court cited with approval the following quotation from the Board's decision, as amended:
The record indicates that the testimony to this effect [that some signatories to au-
thorization cards had testified that they were told that the purpose of the cards was
to obtain a Board election] consisted of affirmative responses by the signatories to
leading questions propounded by Respondent's counsel, upon cross-examination, as to
whether they were told that the purpose of the cards was to secure an election. We do
not deem such testimony sufficient to controvert the statement of the purpose and
effect of such cards contained on the face thereof, nor do we consider it inconsistent
with an understanding that the cards served the dual purpose of designating a repre-
sentative and of securing an election.
Accordingly, we find that the Trial Examiner's ruling in question, even if erroneous,
was not prejudicial.
3 No exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner's findings that the Respondent did not
violate Section 8(a) (3) and (1) by discharging employee Mildred Jarvis and that Re-
spondent did not violate Section 8(a) (1) by denying the 'Union's request for equal time
to answer Respondent's arguments against joining the Union and for equal access to the
Respondent 's bulletin boards. Accordingly, we adopt such findings pro forma.
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO . 991
Manager Jones that supervisors requested that Sanchez not be offered
reinstatement because "he couldn't sweep the floor or do anything."
The General Counsel excepts to this finding and contends that the
Trial Examiner should have credited Sanchez' testimony that
Respondent's Superintendent Jenks told him that he was not being
recalled because he "had come in to vote at the election." However,
the Trial Examiner specifically discredited Sanchez' testimony. Since
,the clear preponderance of the evidence does not convince us that this
credibility resolution of the Trial Examiner is incorrect, we adopt
the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respondent's failure to offer
Sanchez reinstatement was not violative of the Act.4
2. We do not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent's
Manager Jones violated Section 8(a) (1) by warning each member
,of the organizing committee that "any outside activities that inter-
fered with [his]'work would call for dismissal." The Trial Examiner
found that this warning violated Section 8 (a) (1) in view of the
frequency with which Respondent's officials and supervisors utilized
company time to convey to employees their arguments against the
Union. Jones' warning was that working time was for work and was
lawful.5 It was not made unlawful by the circumstance that Respond-
ent itself interfered with production by making its arguments to
employees during working time.'
3. Respondent ' admits that Supervisor Drumwright's questioning
of employees about - their union sentiments and his threat to one
employee that members of the organizing committee "would probably
be let go after the election" were coercive. However, Respondent con-
tends that Manager Jones' neutrality talk to the employees on Feb-
ruary 19 dissipated the coercive effect of Drumwright's conduct. In
light of the other violations committed by Respondent both before
and after the neutrality talk, we find that it did not dissipate the
coercive effect of Drumwright's conduct and, in agreement with the
Trial Examiner, we find further that Drumwright's conduct violated
Section 8 (a) (1).7
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
* Standard Dry Wall Products , 91 NLRB 544 , enfd. 188 F .2d 362 (C.A. 3).
5 Peyton Packing Company , Inc., 49 NLRB 828, 843, enfd 142 F 2d 1009 (C.A. 5), cert.
denied 323 U.S. 730.
6 N.L.R.B. v. United Steelworkers of Amercca ( NuTone, Inc ), 357 U.S. 357
?In so finding , however, we do not , as did the Trial Examiner , rely on General Man-
ager Jones' warnings to the members of the organizing committee . The other violations
committed by Respondent are sufficient to dissipate the effect of the neutrality talk.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
These cases, involving both objections 'to conduct affecting the results of an
election and an unfair labor practice charge filed by the Charging Party (herein-
after referred to as the Union) on March 29, 1965, were heard at Emporia , Kansas,
992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by Trial Examiner A. Norman Somers on August 31 through September 3, 1965,
and by Trial Examiner Owsley Vose, on November 30 through December 3, 1965,
pursuant to a consolidated complaint issued by the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board on June 18, 1965.1 The consolidated complaint alleges that
the Respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, laid off or discharged nine employees in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, and engaged in threats and interroga-
tion, and -denied the Union equal time to answer the Respondent's antiunion
speeches and equal access to- its bulletin boards, in violation of Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act. After the close of the hearing the General Counsel and the Respondent
filed briefs which have been fully considered?
Upon the entire record, including -my observation of the witnesses who appeared
before me, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent (hereinafter called the Company), is engaged at Emporia,
Kansas, in the manufacture of hassocks, cushions, seat pads, life preservers, and
related products. The Company annually receives from, and ships to, points outside
of Kansas, more than $50,000 worth of materials, goods, and products. Upon these
facts, I find, as the Respondent admits, that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Brief outline of the facts; issues involved
After an organizing drive carried on for the most part during the second week
in January 1965, the Union wrote the Company a letter in which it asserted that
it represented a majority of its employees, offered to prove its majority status by
submitting its cards to a disinterested person for a card check, and requested a
conference for the purpose of commencing collective-bargaining negotiations. With-
out waiting for a reply, the Union filed with the Board's Regional Office at Kansas
City, Missouri, a petition for certification as bargaining representative of the
Respondent's employees. The Company by letter dated January 20 refused to grant
the Union's requests, declaring that the matters raised in the Union's letter should
be handled through the Board's procedures. About a month later the Company
entered into a stipulation for certification upon consent election.
The General Counsel contends that from the time the Company first heard of
the union membership drive it engaged in a vigorous campaign to prevent the
Union from achieving bargaining rights, including questioning employees about
their union sympathies, threatening that adverse consequences would follow from
designating the Union as bargaining representative, offering a benefit to an employee
to secure a vote against the Union in the election, soliciting withdrawals from the
Union, and laying off and discharging employees because of their union activities.
At the election which was held on March 26, 1965, the Union lost, 69 to 85, with
8 challenged ballots.
1 While the hearing was in recess In September, Trial Examiner Somers became seriously
ill. In November, when it became apparent that Mr. Somers would not be able to resume
the hearing within a reasonable period of time, Acting Chief Trial Examiner Charles W.
Schneider determined that Mr. Somers had become unavailable to the agency within, the
meaning of Section 5(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act and designated Trial
Examiner Vose to resume the hearing. In his order designating me Trial Examiner, Mr.
Schneider provided that the parties could request a hearing de nove, if they so desired.
The parties, however, decided against this course, with the exception that, at the Respond-
ent's request, the General Counsel recalled one witness, James R. Hayes, and he was
examined de novo by all parties.
2 After the hearing the General Counsel filed a motion to correct the transcript. No
objection having been filed thereto, and it appearing proper, the General Counsel' s motion
is granted; and the record Is corrected as prayed therein:
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO. 993
The General Counsel further urges that the Company's various efforts to bring
about the defeat of the Union in the election brings the case within the decisions
of the Board in Bernel Foam Products Co., Inc., 146 NLRB 1277, and Irving Air
Chute Company, Inc., Marathon Division, 149 NLRB 627, and that in accordance
with these decisions, the election should be set aside and the Company be required
to bargain with the Union forthwith.
The Company, while admitting that it engaged in a vigorous campaign to defeat
the Union in the election, contends, with the one possible exception noted below,
that its conduct was completely lawful, that the layoffs or discharges here involved
were all for cause, and that there is no basis whatever for entering a bargaining
order in this case. The Company does not dispute that Lee Drumwright, admittedly
one of its supervisors, may have engaged in several acts of interference, but con-
tends that these were isolated acts and were exculpated by an announcement by
Linwood Jones, the Company's vice president and general manager, on Febru-
ary 19, which is discussed more fully below.
B. Sequence of events
Jay Dee Patrick, a national representative of the AFL-CIO, went to Emporia
in December 1964 and sought to interest the employees of various employers in
the vicinity, including the Company's, in organizing. A few of the Company's
employees became interested at this time.
On January 7, 1965, Patrick passed out folders to employees at the plant gate
as they entered the company parking lot. On the cover of the folder was printed
in letters / inch high "An Invitation to Join" the "ACWA." Above a detachable
application for membership form inside the folder was a message stressing the
benefits won by members of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America .3
The next day General Manager Jones had all of the Respondent's employees
assembled in groups and read to each group, successively, a speech. The text from
which Jones read is as follows:
TO OUR EMPLOYEES:
Yesterday an outside union organizer handed all of our employees an invita-
tion to join an outside union.
You are entitled to know the position of your company on this question.
We are opposed to unionization and these are the reasons why.
You understand of course, that these people are paid union organizers who
don't know you. Their main interest is getting you to join their union so they
can live off of the monthly dues and membership fees that you will pay them.
These are honest facts and you know I would not say this if it were not true.
Be careful about signing anything. Don't be persuaded by anyone, or by
the propaganda and sales pitch that the unions put out. Remember, union
cannot get you a single thing that you can't get for yourself without these
outsiders trying to come in between us.
Here are some of the benefits that you receive. No union got these things
for you:
1. Sick Pay. You are paid your basic wage after a three-day waiting
period when you are out sick for any reason even if you are hurt in an
auto accident on a Sunday.
s The full text of this card is as follows :
APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP
in the
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO
1627 LOCUST ST. CEntral 1-9329 ST. LOUIS, (3) MO.
I, the undersigned , hereby apply for membership in the Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America and do hereby appoint and authorize the officers thereof, to
represent and negotiate for me in all matters pertaining to wages, hours and other
conditions of employment
Name ( Please sign ): --------------------------------------------------------
Address: ------------------------------------------------------------------
Telephone Number : ----------------------------------Date:------------------
Company: -----------------------------------------------------------------
Department : ----------------------------------------Operation- -------------
Signed:-----------------------------
264-1 8 8-67-vol 161-64
994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Two Weeks Paid Vacation after one year of service.
3. Free Hospitalization, Surgical and Life Insurance for you and your
dependents at no cost to you. (Surgical Insurance was just added this
past October).
4. Seven paid Holidays. (Day after Thanksgiving was just added last
November).
5. Profit Sharing Bonus. Something very unusual for a small company
of our size.
6. Pension Plan after 5 years of service. Paid for by your company-
no cost to you.
I am grateful for the kind of personal contact that now exists in our plant
and I feel confident that you appreciate its value as much as I do. There never
has been a time when you could not bring any problem direct to your super-
visor or myself. Outsiders don't know your problems.
If any of you have any questions, you may come to us. If any of you are
bothered by these outsiders at your home or any other place, you may tell
them to leave, same as you would any other salesman trying to sell you some-
thing you don't want to buy.
I want to thank you again for your loyal support and fine cooperation.
Linwood Jones
Questions were asked at the conclusion of at least one of these speeches. In
answer to questions, Jones brought out that if the Union came in there was no
assurance that present benefits would be retained, stating that it depended on the
outcome of the negotiations. As Marcia Scott credibly testified, Jones told her
group that "the union couldn't guarantee that we wouldn't lose our bonus, that it
would all be decided through negotiations." As put by Dale Haney, Jones, after
referring to the Company's hospitalization and sick benefits and its bonus plan, said
to his group that it had been rumored by "some people," obviously alluding to
supporters of the Union, that the retention of present benefits was assured. This
was not true, said Jones, "It would all depend on what the negotiation committee
had to say about it." In other words, as Jones stated to the group, "There wasn't
any guarantee about still keeping those benefits." As reported by Henry Anstaett,
Jones said to his group that "if the Union got in we wouldn't have any more
vacations and insurance would be discontinued." Jones testified that he read all of
the speeches, "with the exception of one which was read in part and there was a
question and answer session ," and that he did interpolate somewhat to explain
why he was reading the speech instead of speaking "off-the-cuff." Jones was not
questioned concerning the testimony of Marcia Scott, Dale Haney, and Henry
Anstaett, quoted above. I conclude upon all of the testimony that Jones interpolated
in his speeches to a greater extent than his testimony indicates and that Jones
warned at least one group that adherence to the Union might result in the loss of
present benefits , depending on how the negotiations proceeded.
About this same time, Lee Drumwright , the supervisor in the hassocks and
accessories department, approached Dewey Herron at his work station in the depart-
ment and asked him how he felt about the Union. When Herron spoke up in favor
of the Union , Drumwright according to Herron's uncontradicted testimony ,4 admon-
ished him to "make sure that [it] could help before [he] went one way or another."
A few days later Drumwright asked Cecil Nichols, another of the employees in his
department, whether he was going to attend the first union meeting which had been
scheduled for that evening. The next morning, after the meeting had been held,
Drumwright questioned Nichols as to whether he had attended. Nichols admitted
that he had . Drumwright also made the same inquiry of Larry Noble the morning
after the first union meeting. When Noble answered that he had attended the union
meeting, Drumwright asked whether Noble had signed a union card. Noble told
Drumwright that "it was none of his damn business."
1. The first union meeting on January 12
As indicated above, the first union meeting for the Company 's employees was
held on the evening of January 12, 1965, at the Ranch House Motel in Emporia.
About 75 employees attended. Edward J. Bonitt, a national representative of the
Union, and Patrick, a national representative of the AFL-CIO, both spoke to the
* Drumwright was not called as a witness . Consequently all of the conversations at-
tributed to Drumwright stand undenied in the record
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO. 995
employees at this meeting . The testimony concerning the statements of Bonitt and
Patrick at this meeting is somewhat conflicting . Set forth immediately below are
the facts as I find them after resolving the various conflicts in the testimony. The
basis for my resolution of the conflicting testimony is explained below in connection
with my discussion of the Company 's contentions.
Bonitt, who spoke first, gave a brief history of the Union, stated the nature of
the relationship of the Locals to the national organization, mentioned the Union's
pension , hospitalization , and insurance plans and various other benefits to be
derived from membership in the Union, and pointed out that if they wanted a
union, the first step would be to sign a card. Bonitt added that it was to the
employees' advantage to have a substantial majority signed up, because then they
would be in a stronger bargaining position in the negotiations.
Patrick announced that the Union would ask for volunteers to assist in the drive,
and stated that it was up to the employees to get the authorizaion cards signed up
and that they should do so as soon as possible. Patrick said that he wanted to get
cards signed by 65 percent of the employees before he approached the Company.
He explained that after this was done the Union would request recognition as bar-
gaining agent . Patrick went on to say that if the Company was agreeable, they
would call in some disinterested outside party to check the cards, and that the
Company would not find out who signed. Patrick commented, however, that as a
rule employers did not agree to grant recognition on the basis of a card check and
that generally the Union had to go to an election. Patrick further explained as
follows:
an election is a pretty much complicated problem from the standpoint
that first we have to get at least 30 per cent of the people signed before the
government will have an election. Then the government would send an agent in
when we send the cards to the government and try to set up an election. This
was a secret ballot election, that no one would know how they voted, not even
the union, the company, nor any of the supervisors nor any of their fellow
employees. That the individual, himself, and his own God would know how
he voted at the election. There would be no problem that way whatsoever.
Patrick continued that after the election, if the Union won, the employees would
nominate a negotiating committee and both the Company and the Union would
have to bargain collectively in good faith. Patrick further stated that while he could
not promise anything definite , the chances were that as a result of the bargaining
the employees' benefits would be increased and that they would not lose any of their
present benefits , although they might receive them in a different form.
After reading a membership application card to the employees, Patrick passed
them out, together with postage-free return envelopes, and explained that if they
wanted to think about the matter further, or talk it over with their families, they
could do so and mail the cards back to his office later. Patrick informed the
employees about their rights under the Act and the work of the Board in protecting
these rights, and asked the employees to be on the alert for violations of their
rights.
During the course of the general meeting questions were asked from the floor.
Among others, questions were asked concerning the benefits which would be sought
through the Union . A considerable discussion of piecework rates ensued . In answer-
ing questions Patrick assumed that the Company was going to insist upon an elec-
tion and consequently made frequent references to the election . These references
to the election which Patrick anticipated would be held and his explanation that
in the election, no one would know how he voted, neither the Union, the Com-
pany, nor their fellow employees would know, I find , were interpreted by some of
the employees at the meeting as indicating that the cards would be used only for
the purpose of obtaining an election . There is much testimony concerning whether
Patrick did or did not make such statements at this meeting . As indicated above,
the basis for my resolution of this conflicting testimony is discussed below.
After the meeting with the group of employees as a whole ended , Patrick and
Bonitt met with a smaller group of volunteers who were to act as the organizing
committee . Patrick informed them that it was their responsibility as committee
members to get the cards signed, and again stressed that it was important to get 65
percent of the employees signed up because of the strong likelihood that the Com-
pany would refuse recognition , and the Union would have to go to an election.
Patrick gave the committee members cards and instructed them not to solicit signa-
tures on cards on company time . Finally, Patrick warned the committee members
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to be on the lookout for antiunion conduct on the part of the Company's super.
visors or managers, and told them to keep notes regarding any threats, instances
of questioning, or discharges.
In a question-and-answer session at this committee meeting, one question was
asked of Patrick the answer to which is the subject of much conflicting testimony.
After considering all of the pertinent evidence I conclude that the question was
raised whether the language on the cards meant that the signers were then joining
the Union. Patrick answered, I find, that the cards would be used first to obtain an
election, that the signers of the cards would not be joining the Union at this time,
that this would be deferred until after the Union had won the election and had
succeeded in negotiating a contract satisfactory to the employees .5 As explained
more fully below, this finding is based not only on the testimony of Union Repre-
sentatives Patrick and Bonitt, but also on the testimony of witnesses called by the
Company, Laura Jordan and Sandra Fraser (Soendker), and upon my appraisal
of all the attendant circumstances.
2. The Union signs up a majority of the employees and requests
recognition ; the Company refuses.
Approximately 10 employees signed cards at the meeting on January 12. During
the next few days signatures on cards were obtained from a substantial majority of
the Company's employees. By January 18 the Union had received over 100 signed
cards. There were about 172 employees on the Respondent's payroll at this time.
On January 18 Patrick mailed the following letter to the Company:
Crawford Manufacturing Co.
Emporia
Kansas
Attention: Mr. Jones
Gentlemen:
This will inform you that a majority of the employees of your establishment
in a unit consisting of all Production Workers, Shipping & Receiving and
Maintenance Employees, which the National Labor Relations Board normally
considers appropriate for collective bargaining, has designated the Amalga-
mated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, to act as their collective bar-
gaining representative.
We request an opportunity to prove our majority representation in this unit
by a card check through a disinterested party, agreeable to both union and
management who will not reveal the identity of the signatories.
We request you furnish us with a list of job classifications and wage rates
paid employees at your establishment. We request, further, that an early
conference be arranged for discussion on the above mentioned items and for
the purpose of negotiating a contract for your employees
We further request equal time and opportunity at any meetings, discussions,
use of bulletin boards, showing of film, or any other method you may use
for discussing the matter of union representation with your employees.
It would be greatly appreciated if, by return mail, you notify us in regard
to the date, time and place that will be convenient for the above requested
conference for discussion of recognition and contract negotiation.
Very truly yours,
cc: Ed Bonnitt
Bill Hall (S) Jay Dee Patrick
N.L.R.B. JAY DEE PATRICK,
National Rep. AFI-CIO
The Company replied by letter dated January 20, as follows:
Dear Mr. Patrick:
The matters which you raise in your letter of January 18, should be pro-
cessed through the National Labor Relations Board.
We would suggest your compliance with these procedures.
Yours truly,
(S) Linwood Jones
LINWOOD JONES
51 base my finding that this question was asked at the meeting of the organizing com-
mittee and not at the general meeting on the fact that only members of the organizing
committee gave testimony about such a question being asked.
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO. 997
3. The Company begins its written campaign against the Union
On January 18, the same day the Union mailed its letter to the Company
requesting recognition but before it was received by it, the Company mailed the
following letter to all of its employees at their homes:
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.
EMPORIA, KANSAS.
January 18, 1965
TO OUR EMPLOYEES:
I am writing this to you at your homes because it is a matter of importance
to all of us and it is something which affects your very livelihood.
Several outsiders have asked you to join their union, and in return for
monthly dues paid to them, have made wild promises-promises that they
cannot keep. It is the company that pays the wages-not the Unions. As we
have said before, the company cannot and will not pay wages that puts them
in a non-competitive position.
Our company started its business in Emporia in 1959. We lost a great deal
of money in starting this business and we have never made what we consider
a satisfactory profit. Nevertheless, when we have done better, you have done
better. Only this past year we added an extra paid holiday and free surgical
insurance for you and your dependents. No Union made us do this.
Here are some of the benefits you now enjoy which many union contracts
do not contain:
1. Sick pay. You are paid your basic wage after a three-day waiting
period when you are out sick for any reason even if you are hurt in an
auto accident on a Sunday.
2. Two Weeks Paid Vacation after one year of service.
3. Free Hospitalization and Surgical Insurance for you and your
dependents at no cost to you. (Surgical insurance was just added this
past October).
4. Free Life Insurance-$500.00 for female employees and $1,000.00
for male employees.
5. Seven paid Holidays. (Day after Thanksgiving was just added last
November).
6. Profit Sharing Bonus. Something very unusual for a small company
of our size.
7. Pension Plan after 5 years of service. Paid for by your company-
no cost to you.
No Union made us do these things. This is a large `cost to your company.
Our profit sharing plan in particular is very unusual for any company to
have. Last September checks ranging from $50.00 to $259.00 were given to
our eligible employees. To the best of our knowledge this union who is now
so "interested" in you does not have a contract with any compahy that pays
its members a part of company profits.
These outsiders have promised you all of the benefits we now give will be
continued. This is a false promise. What you might be able to get depends
upon negotiations. Nothing you have now is assured. Any negotiations may
result in less than what you have now. The only weapon a Union has is a
strike. No one gains by losing their wages during a strike. Car payments,
house payments and food bills continue but wages do not. Unemployment
compensation is not paid to employees on strike. The Union outsiders are
paid-you are not.
I want to keep telling you the truth so you won't be misinformed by these
outsiders. These are the facts, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Think
twice before signing anything. If you have already signed a card, you may
ask for it back.
We appreciate your loyalty and cooperation over the past years and we
hope you will have the same confidence in us in the future.
Yours truly,
Linwood Jones
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The next day the Company gave out the following release to all of its employees:
January 19, 1965
TO OUR EMPLOYEES:
A union has been trying to organize our good workers . It has made wild
promises-promises that it cannot keep. It is the Company that pays the
wages-not the union . The Company cannot and will not pay wages that
puts them in a non-competitive position . This is not good for us and it is not
good for you. If you vote for a union and they insist on more, the only
thing they could try to do is strike. A strike means lost wages for you-
wages you can never recover.
These outsiders have promised that all the benefits we now provide will be
continued . That is also a false promise. What you might be able to get
depends upon negotiations . Nothing you have now is assured . Any negotiation
may result in less than what you have now. Don 't let anybody tell you other-
wise. Think twice before signing any thing. If you have already signed a card,
ask for it back before it is too late.
Yours truly,
L. Jones
Later that day, January 19, the Company issued a second release purportedly
clarifying its earlier release. It reads as follows:
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.
EMPORIA , KANSAS
January 19, 1965
TO OUR EMPLOYEES:
On withdrawal of your Union cards , you are entitled to request the with-
drawal of your cards if you want to. That is entirely up to you.
Whether you do or whether you don't will not affect you or your job at
this plant . We believe that in our last time card slip to you with reference
to withdrawing of cards, that we did not make this as clear as we should have.
This notice correctly sets forth our position in this matter.
Remember, the law says you are free to join or not to join a Union and
no one can restrain or coerce you in the exercise of your rights . The com-
pany will abide by the law. If any of you are intimidated or threatened by
the Union , please let us know at once.
Yours truly,
Linwood Jones
4. The second union meeting on January 19
The Union had its second meeting on the evening of January 19. Approximately
72 employees attended. Patrick informed the employees that, having obtained
sufficient authorization cards, the Union had written the Company a letter demand-
ing recognition , and that it had filed with the Board a petition in case the Com-
pany did not grant the Union's request for recognition. Patrick read to the
assembled employees the Union 's letter demanding recognition.
Patrick had with him at the meeting one of the slips which the Company had
given the employees that day in which it suggested the withdrawal of the union
authorization cards. He announced that any employee who wanted to withdraw
his card was free to do so, and offered to assist anyone desiring to withdraw in
obtaining his card back from the Board's Regional Office in Kansas City, to which
they had been mailed along with the Union's petition.
As indicated above, during this meeting questions were asked of Patrick by
various employees . One question related to what he thought General Manager
Jones' response would be to the Union 's request for recognition . Patrick replied
that "the chances were he would not , that 99 times out of 100 we had to go
through a hearing and to through [the NLRB election] procedure ." Patrick again
explained this procedure to the employees , as some of those present had not
attended the first union meeting. The question was again asked whether the signers
of the cards had to join the Union . Patrick answered , as he had at the meeting
of the organizing committee a week earlier , that the cards would be used to obtain
an election , that the employees signing cards would not be joining the Union
at this time , that only after the Union had won the election and succeeded in
negotiating a contract acceptable to the employees would the signers of the cards
be joining the Union.
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO. 999
5. The Company distributes further antiunion literature among the employees
On February 5, the Company issued a release notifying the employees of the
scheduling on February 18 of an NLRB hearing on the Union's petition for an
election and certification . The postscript to this release is as follows:
Remember a while back, I said to beware of the loose talk and reckless
promises of these outsiders? They really came up with a "whopper" in their
last hand-out, knowing full well that the "8 Bucks A Week" was nothing
more than a come-on to get you to bite at their bait., These outsiders under-
estimate your intelligence.
Promises such as these lead to strikes!
This was the Company's reply to a portion of a union leaflet passed out on
February 3 in which it was argued that only the "boss" profits by delay in repre-
sentation matters. This portion is as follows:
The boss doesn't feel that way . . Let's say that when your union is
voted in you negotiate wages and other benefits totalling 20 cents per hour.
At forty hours a week that amounts to eight bucks a week . Multiply that
eight bucks times the number of workers and you can see how much the
company saves each week it delays the election.
This union leaflet was 1 of about 17 distributed by the Union after it had
obtained authorization cards from a substantial majority of the Company's employ-
ees. Apparently they were designed to stimulate continued interest in the Union.
With a few exceptions , all of the leaflets passed out were standard AFL-CIO
leaflets which were designed for use in election campaigns in general and were not
geared to this particular campaign . Unlike the union propaganda used in some
election campaigns , this literature spoke in generalities and contained no personal
attacks on the Company or its officials.
The Company's next communication to the employees was put out on Febru-
ary 15. It is as follows:
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.
EMPORIA, KANSAS.
February 15, 1965
Q. Does it cost money to belong to the Union?
A. Yes, it costs plenty . Unions collect monthly dues and initiation fees.
Besides that , there are a lot of other fees such as assessments and contribu-
tions. Unions also fine members who violate any of the many Union rules.
Q. Does any employee of the Crawford Manufacturing Company have to
join the Union?
A. NO. You don't have to belong to the Union to keep your job here and
don't let anyone tell you that you do. The Union did not start this Company
and does not operate this Company, nor has the Union ever given you a
job or paid your wages , and the Union never will.
6. General Manager Jones' warnings to the members of the union
organizing committee
In the meantime , the Union , on February 8, had mailed a letter to the Company
notifying it of the names of its committee members and asking it to respect their
rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
The same day the Company received this letter, or the next day, each of the
committee members was summoned away from his work by William Jenks, the
plant superintendent , and directed to go to General Manager Jones' office. There
each committee member was interviewed individually by Jones, who told each
employee that he had received the Union's letter about the organizing committee,
and that he wanted each to know that he was not entitled to any special status
because of being a committee member and that "any outside activities that inter-
fered with our work would call for dismissal."
Subsequently Susan Blount, one of the committee members thus spoken to by
General Manager Jones, went up to Superintendent Jenks and asked whether her
job was in danger because of being on the union organizing committee. Jenks
stated that her job was safe as long as she did her work.
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7. Supervisor Drumwright's further antiunion activities
A few days after Jones ' warning to the members of the organizing committee,
Supervisor Drumwright approached Richard Solis, a member of the committee,
at his work in the department. In the course of the conversation which ensued,
Drumwright remarked, according to Solis, "that anyone on the organizing com-
mittee might as well think about finding another job because we would probably
be let go after the election for a union."
About this same time Supervisor Drumwright spoke for about half an hour
about the Union to Charles Speer, one of the employees in his department. Drum-
wright mentioned the dues and assessments in the Union and raised the question
with Speer as to whether the Union could get anything for the employees that
they could not get without it. Subsequently Drumwright questioned Carl Cunning-
ham, John Joss, and Harold Posey either as to how they felt about the Union or
how they were going to vote in the election. Posey told Drumwright that he
"didn't think too much of it." Of Posey, Drumwright also inquired as to how he
felt that Bill Sealy would vote in the election.
8. The Company agrees to the holding of a consent election,
General Manager Jones' neutrality talk; the layoffs
As indicated above, on February 8, at the hearing on the Union's petition, the
Company agreed to the holding of a consent election, which was set for March 26.
It was also agreed that employees on the February 12 payroll would be eligible
to vote in the election.
The next day General Manager Jones made a brief talk to a group of employees
in which he stated as follows:
I, as manager of this company, am the man speaking for this company. Any
rumors or threats that you may have heard which was attributed to any of
our supervisors is not company policy. We don't know what has been said
but it is our policy to refrain from making any threats or promises or
interrogation. We repudiate any that have been made. If any threats or prom-
ises have been made to you let us hear about them; we don't tolerate this
Late in the day on February 19, the Company notified eight of its employees
of their temporary layoff. These cases are discussed below.
9. More antiunion communications
With the election now set for a definite date, the Company in its antiunion
communications to the employees stressed the importance of voting "No" in the
election. On February 26 the Company issued the following leaflet:
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.
EMPORIA, KANSAS.
February 26, 1965
Q. Can an employee of the Crawford Manufacturing Company who signed
a Union card vote against the Union in the election?
A YES, you can vote against the Union. It doesn't make any difference
whether you signed a Union card or went to Union meetings. The election
will be your opportunity to vote in freedom and by secret ballot and you
can vote as you wish.
Q. Should you vote in the election if you are not interested in the Union?
A. YES. It is very important that everyone votes. The Union does not
have to get a majority of the employees eligible to vote, but only has to get
a majority of those actually voting. Do not stand back and let others decide
your fate. This election may be the most important one you will ever have a
chance to vote in. Be sure and vote!
Q. If the Union shoild win the election, will the employees of the Craw-
ford Manufacturing Company have to go out on strike?
A. The only way that the Union can try to force the Company to agree to
what the Union has been promising is to make you go out on a strike. Prom-
ises are cheap but it is something else for the Union to fulfill those promises.
On March 9, the Company put out a letter purportedly answering the "UNION
CLAIM" that "the employees have `nothing to lose' because the Company cannot
`take away' from what the employees now have; it can only `give' more." There is
nothing in the leaflets distributed by the Union during the entire organizing cam-
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO. 1001
paign making any such claim. Apparently the basis for the Company's repeatedly
attributing to the Union such a claim is the fact that Patrick at the first or second
union meeting made a remark about present benefits being guaranteed in one
form or another.
In the March 9 letter the Respondent stated with repect to the above-quoted
purported claim of the Union, as follows:
Such a statement by the Union is false. Under the law, if the Union is selected
as the bargaining agent, both sides (the Union and the Employer) make pro-
posals. All that is required is that the parties thereafter try to reach an agree-
ment in good faith. The agreement which is reached may be better than or
may be less than what the employees now have. The law does not require the
making of any concessions by either side.
In support of its assertion that the Union had falsely claimed that benefits could
not be reduced as a result of bargaining negotiations, the Company cited and
quoted from an Annual Report of the Board and several court and Board decisions.
10. Superintendent Jenks' conversations with employees about the Union
Shortly after the distribution of this document among the employees Superin-
tendent Jenks summoned two of the members of the organizing committee to his
office and, in the course of lengthy conversations, sought to bring home to them
individually the possibility of their losing present benefits if the Union was successful
in the election. One of these was Nancy Brown, to whom Jenks had previously
remarked that he was shocked to find her among the committee members.6 Observ-
ing her passing his office, Jenks called Brown in. This was the second or third dis-
cussion which Jenks had had with Brown on the subject of the Union.7 On this
occasion Jenks showed Brown a large page of reprints of articles and photographs
from the Chillicothe Constitution-Tribune dealing with a strike in which the Union
was currently engaged at the Boss Manufacturing Company plant at Chillicothe,
Missouri. The articles and pictures portrayed considerable violence in connection
with the strike. Brown told Jenks that she also deplored violence. Jenks brought
up the fact that Joseph Bechtel had brought in a little book put out by the Board
in order to prove to Jenks "that you don't start out from scratch" in bargaining
negotiations. However, Jenks asserted that Bechtel "couldn't prove that out of that
book." Pointing to a blank yellow tablet in front of him, Jenks declared that "it
would be just like starting from that, you-there is no guarantee that they can't
take things away from you, things you have, and replace them with something
else, your seniority, they can switch that around." 8
Jenks next talked with Larry Noble. The meeting was arranged by Supervisor
Drumwright at Noble's request after Jenks earlier that day had impliedly threatened
to discharge Noble. At least this was Noble's view of the matter. This earlier inci-
dent is discussed below. After discussing company matters at the outset, Jenks
stated as follows: "Larry, I believe I am wasting my time talking to you because
you have shown your feelings to the union by being on the organizing [committee],
but I feel obligated." Jenks went on to say "that he had seen union contracts from
other plants and that they didn't have near as much as we had and that the Union
told us we negotiated from what we already had and we couldn't lose anything."
Jenks continued, " . . . during negotiations, both sides would sit down with a
blank sheet of paper and they would negotiate from there ...." 9 Jenks then
$ Jenks denied telling Brown in so many words that he was "shocked" to see her name
on the union list. Whether Jenks used this word or not, I believe that he conveyed this
impression to Brown when he spoke to her on this occasion
7Jenks admitted talking to Brown for 75 minutes on one occasion and 70 minutes an-
other time
s The foregoing finding is based on Brown's credited testimony. Jenks was not ques-
tioned about Brown's testimony regarding negotiations starting from scratch The re-
mainder of Brown's testimony is corroborated by that of Jenks
0 Jenks denied saying anything about negotiating from a blank sheet of paper. Jenks'
version of this part of the conversation is as follows: "He [Noble] asked me what benefits
would we retain, he felt we had a better hospital and sick pay plan than the union did
and he would like to keep that in if it came to a contract. I explained to him that all of
this would be done entirely on a negotiation and that it was hard to say what would be
retained and what would be swapped, this would all be done by professionals." In my
opinion Noble's version quoted in the text above is more credible
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mentioned the Boss Manufacturing Company strike at Chillicothe , which he
described as a foul mess because of all the violence which occurred there. This
conversation occurred on March 16 , 10 days before the election.
The incident which led Noble to seek to talk to Jenks occurred under these
circumstances . The Company had posted on the bulletin board a leaflet containing
language to the following effect: "Stand Pat, You Have a Deal Without Paying
Union Dues ." The leaflet had been altered to read , "Stand Pat with the Union" or
words to this effect . About 9 a.m . on March 16 , Jenks summoned Noble to the
bulletin board , saying that he wanted to show him something . Jenks then said that
"he didn't know who the clown was that altered the leaflet, but if he found out,
he was going to run [him ] out the door." Then , looking at Noble, Jenks said,
"You understand ." After thinking the matter over , Noble became concerned that
Jenks thought that he (Noble ) had altered the leaflet . When Supervisor Drum-
wright later passed through the department , Noble mentioned the incident to him.
As a result , the interview with Jenks was arranged.10
Another similar incident involving Jenks and a member of the organizing com-
mittee occurred about this same time. On this occasion , as Marcia Scott was work-
ing at the inspection table , Jenks came up, accompanied by Harry Hollinger , Scott's
immediate supervisor . Jenks stated that he had heard that she had said that the
Union had Jenks and Jones "scared ," and also that she "was pushing the union on
company time." Jenks added that he had two people who would sign statements
to the effect that she had been pushing the Union on company time. When Scott
denied having done so, Jenks let the matter drop . About a week later Scott
approached Jenks and told him she really had not said that the Union had him
and Jones scared , and that there had been a misunderstanding . Jenks rejoined that
he had people who would sign statements to this effect and that "he could have fired
[Scott ] and that was the way things was ." After further conversation , Jenks stated
that "he could have fired [ Scott]" even if the persons signing statements were
lying."
In this period , a week or two before the election , Jenks also had a conversation
with Mary Clements at her work station . Jenks told Clements that he "thought
that [she ] had heard enough about this union back and forth both ways and that
he couldn 't ask [her] which way [she ] intended to vote, or wouldn 't, but he hoped
that he had [her] support , said if [she ] ever had any complaints or questions to
come to him and let him know and he was sure we could work it out and that was
about it." Later that day Clements was assigned to do some handstuffing of pillows
in place of another girl who was on a leave of absence . Usually Clements worked
on a machine stuffer at piecework rates and she was able to earn more money on
her regular job than on this temporary assignment . Clements decided to accept
Jenks' invitation to take her complaints to him . Consequently she went to Jenks'
office and complained to him that she could not make her average pay doing hand-
stuffing. Jenks replied that this was a legitimate request and that she should receive
her average pay for the handstuffing work which she was doing. Jenks then called
Hollinger, Clements' supervisor, and informed him, Clements ' presence , that he
had talked to Clements earlier that day and that "he felt they had [Clements']
support and he in turn had to give . . . his to [her]." Jenks explained to Hollinger
the nature of Clements' complaint and asked that it be taken care of. Hollinger
then went to Clements ' table and instructed her how to make out her timesheet
so that she would receive pay equivalent to the average which she had made on
her machine.
Jenks had discussions with other employees during the preelection period in
which he presented arguments against the Union . Among those to whom he spoke
were Committee Member Dewey Herron and also Robert Bastin.
11. The Company continues the dissemination of antiunion literature
The Company's next move was the release to the employees on March 18 of a
photocopy reproduction of a union dues-checkoff authorization card together with
1o Jenks, although recalling an incident involving Noble and a "mutilated" card, denied
saying anything about a "clown " or running anyone out . I believe Noble's version
"The foregoing finding is based on Marcia Scott 's credited testimony which is not denied
by Jenks. In fact Jenks ' testimony , for the most part , gibes with Scott's testimony about
these incidents.
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO. 1003
certain comments . These were not the cards which were used in the Union's mem-
bership drive . Regarding these checkoff cards the Company commented as follows:
If a majority of our employees vote for an outside union , here is a sample
of the check-off form you may be asked to sign.
Check-off means that the dues and assessments of this union may be
deducted from your pay check before you even see it!
You will see from the below that if you sign this form you cannot with-
draw it for a period of at least one year or until the contract expires.
This document , which concludes with "VOTE NO ON MARCH 26TH," does not
mention the fact that the checkoff can be put into effect only if the Union requests
such a provision in the contract and the Company itself agrees to such a
provision.
Later, the Company put out the following document:
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.
EMPORIA, KANSAS.
March 18, 1965 -
Re: UNION
Here is another cheap trick that the Union has done to try to mislead
our employees. This is a typical union tactic!
Here is a telegram just received at, 4:00 P.M. from the Union:
Crawford Mfg. Co. Deliver Thursday Around 4 P.M.
Mr. Jones, Plant Manager and Mr. Jenks, Personnel Manager
Emporia, Kansas.
We urgently request a debate between the management and the union
be held in order that the employees of your plant can determine intelli-
gently the actual truth of the organizational campaign now being con-
ducted in your plant by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union. We
request this debate be open to your employees, supervisors and their
families. We the union will accept any moderator you so choose. We the
union will be ready to debate at any time or place you so choose. Reply
respectfully requested. Wire reply to AFL-CIO Building 2001 Empire,
Joplin, Mo.
Jay Dee Patrick , National Representative
AFL-CIO, Coise Wiggins International Rep.
Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union.
Here is the company reply:
Jay Dee Patrick National Representative
Your propaganda telegram won't work. This is a move of desperation
on your part because you know our employees will reject your union, its
strikes, violence, dues and other penalties which you impose on our
employees. We have given our employees the facts and we propose to
continue to give them the facts.
You are fully aware of the fact that the law prohibits the Company
in what it can say to the employees while you can continue to make wild
promises and statements that you know cannot be kept. I trust that you
will give our reply the same publicity that you intended to do with your
telegram.
Linwood Jones
We will continue to give you, our employees, the facts. We are sure you can
see through this latest union maneuver. We want to give you the facts so that
you can make an intelligent decision and we feel that you will vote NO
in the election after careful consideration.
Yours truly,
Linwood Jones
LJ:nse
P.S.-Why did the union not want this telegram delivered until after 4:00
P.M. this afternoon? We are here all day!
1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The next day, March 19, which was payday, the Company paid the employees
for their week's work in two paychecks. The Company explained its action in the
following slip which was enclosed with the two paychecks:
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.
EMPORIA, KANSAS
March 19, 1965
UNION DUES:
An outside union has been trying for about two months to get you to vote
for their union and become a dues paying member.
From your regular pay-check this week we have deducted two months dues
to alert you as to how much money this really is. This amounts to $45.00
per year.
Attached is a separate check to reimburse you for the amount deducted.
Vote NO on March 26th
That same day the Company placed on the various machines in the plant 3 by
5 inch cards picturing a man with empty pockets and bearing the following text:
"Have you figured what you'll have left after union fees, dues and special assess-
ments." Apparently about this same time the Company distributed a printed dodger
stressing how costly strikes were to employees even though they won the strike.
On March 22 the Company issued a release to the employees in which it
quoted from the constitution of the Union. Relying on one of the quotations, the
Company asserted, "YOU CAN BE FORCED TO STRIKE EVEN THOUGH
YOU DON'T WANT TO." Another provision, according to the Company, subjects
employees to charges filed by other employees, and then the Company went on
to say, "THIS POSSIBLY CAN BE DONE EVEN BECAUSE SOMEONE
DOESN'T LIKE WHAT YOU DO." This particular release, after discussing vari-
ous other asserted disadvantages flowing from the union's constitution, concludes
as follows:
THESE ARE THE SHOCKING FACTS: THESE ARE THE FACTS
THAT THE UNION WILL NOT TELL YOU ABOUT. IT'S NO WONDER
THAT UNION MEMBERSHIP HAS DECLINEDI
IF YOU DON'T WANT OTHER PEOPLE TO CONTROL YOUR LIVLI-
HOOD ... IF YOU DON'T WANT OTHER PEOPLE TO DECIDE THAT
YOU SHOULD STRIKE REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN WISHES-
THEN
VOTE NO AGAINST THE UNION
On March 23, 3 days before the election the Company mailed to each of the
employees at their homes personal letters which were signed by Linwood Jones,
the Respondent's general manager. The text of the letters follows:
On Friday you will be called upon to make one of the most important
decisions of your life. I am sure that by now you have heard many conflicting
stories, statements and promises. Because this decision is so important to you,
I would like to take this opportunity to briefly outline the facts.
A Union can promise many things, but only the company can perform.
The only guarantee a Union can make is of the right to strike. This can mean
.many weeks without a pay check, while your cost of living continues to run.
If you elect to join an outsider's union, you obligate yourself to pay
monthly dues, assessments, fines and penalties as determined by the Union
outsiders-not by you! There is a minimum cost of $45.00 per year to you
for "Pie In The Sky Promises." This will amount to approximately $8,000.00
per year from our employees.
On the other hand, the company has provided you with steady work, liberal
fringe benefits including holidays, vacations, sick pay, life insurance, hospital-
ization, and pension plan and many others at no cost to you. These are tangible
things which have been obtained without a day's lost wages because of strikes
or work stoppages.
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO. 1005
They have been voluntarily given because you are an excellent group of
employees. You have not been required to pay tribute to any union boss to
obtain them.
We all know the only way we can prosper is by working together.
You have had a taste of the bickering and dissension and petty harassment
engaged in by a few. Think what it could be like if this small group succeeds
in selling this union bill of goods! Let's put a stop to this by voting NO and
sending these paid organizers back where they came from.
Nothing you have signed up until now or no meeting you have attended obli-
gates you to vote one way or the other on Friday. This is a decision which you
should make based on your own self-interests.
Remember that regardless of what the Union has told you, if a majority of
our employees vote for these outsiders, you are stuck with them for at least
one year. Nothing can change this, not the Union, not the company, no one!
I want to thank you for your fine cooperation and loyal service in the past.
If you vote NO in the election Friday, you may be sure it will be greatly
appreciated by your company and fellow employees.
The day before the election, March 25, the Company issued the last of its
preelection releases. Attached to it was a copy of its March 9 release attacking as
false the Union's asserted "claim" that the employees could not lose present bene-
fits in the course of bargaining negotiations. The covering release is as follows:
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.
EMPORIA, KANSAS
March 25, 1965
Re: LAST-MINUTE UNION TRICKS:
Beware of last-minute union promises and double-talk. Judging by their past
performances, -they will undoubtedly try to sell you a "Bill of Goods" and
"Promises of Pie In The Sky." This a typical last-minute act of desperation.
Here is what they will probably tell you:
1. If you will only vote for our union and pay us dues , every benefit
you now have is assured to you by law, and also there is a "pot of gold
at the end of the rainbow." I am attaching another copy of the law which
was given you sometime ago in regard to what can and cannot be done
during contract negotiations. The law is that what is included in any con-
tract must be negotiated and that can mean less than you now have.
2. They probably will tell you that only you, the people can strike and
that if you will only vote for them and pay their dues, you can never be
made to strike and lose your wages against your wishes.
Let's look at the facts! See Article V, Section 4 of the by-laws of the Kansas
City Joint Board . This states that someone else decides whether you strike.
Now let's look at the record. This union has a record of strikes and violence.
This same union has been conducting a strike in Chillicothe, Missouri since
January 7 against the employees' wishes. Apparently these people did not want
to strike and would like to return to work, but they are being intimidated,
threatened, and harassed by union leaders in order to keep them away from
their jobs.
Does this sounds like freedom? The same thing could happen here if a few
of these union agitators get control.
Some of our people who originally believed these false promises have now
expressed publicly their complete dis-belief after investigating and finding out
the true facts.
We are glad of this. It is easy to get in but awfully hard to get out.
(S) L. Jones
Lmiwoon Joxrs
.VOTE FOR YOURSELF-VOTE NO!
The Company had previously circulated among some of the employees clippings
from the Chillicothe Constitution-Tribune stressing violence encountered at the
Chillicothe, Missouri, plant of the Boss Manufacturing Company in the course of a
strike in which the Union was involved.
1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Union replied to the leaflets issued in the past few days by the Company
with a leaflet of its own which it passed out on the morning of the election. This
leaflet stated, in part, as follows:
1. ONLY YOU AND YOU ALONE CAN DECIDE WHETHER YOUR
PLANT WILL GO OUT ON STRIKE.
2. Union dues are $3 .75 per month.
3. Initiation fee is $1.00.
4. There has NEVER BEEN an assessment in our union in this area.
This was one of the few leaflets distributed by the Union during the campaign
which was prepared for use in the particular situation existing at the plant.
12. The election ; subsequent events
The election was held as scheduled on March 26 . As indicated above , the Union
lost, 69 to 86 with 8 challenged ballots.
As soon as the election was over , the Respondent distributed the following
announcement among the employees:
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.
EMPORIA, KANSAS
March 26, 1965
ELECTION RESULTS:
I am sure that all you know by now that the election results were 85 to 69
against the union.
We knew that once you had the facts you would make a sound decision.
You did so and you are to be congratulated!
We also appreciate the confidence which you have shown in your company.
Now as before we want to make Crawford Manufacturing Company one of the
best places to work in this area.
I personally want to thank each and every one of you for your loyal
support.
Yours truly,
Linwood Jones
LJ:nse
About 4 p.m. on the afternoon of the election the Company suddenly discharged
Mildred Jarvis. Her case is discussed below.
At 4:30 p.m. that afternoon, the Union distributed its final leaflet giving its
thanks to those who voted for the Union, saying "no hard feelings" to those who
did not, and expressing the hope that in the future the Union's strength in the plant
would grow.
On the Monday after the election Superintendent Jenks summoned Harold Posey
to his office. Posey is the employee, it will be recalled, who told Supervisor Drum-
wright that he "didn't think too much" of the Union. Jenks, after informing Posey
that his new supervisor, Doudican, had informed him that Posey "was unhappy
with the result of the union election," told Posey that he was "disappointed" in him
for "talking out of both sides of his mouth." 12
C. The layoffs and discharges
1. The layoffs of February 19
a. The basic facts
Near the end of the workday on Friday, February 19, the day after signing the
consent-election agreement , the Company laid off eight employees from various
departments. The Company notified, the employees that they were being laid off
12 This conversation throws light on the question of the Company's knowledge of the
union sympathies of its employees at the time of the layoff on February 19 and is included
for this purpose (Posey,who was not laid off, had the same seniority as Dennis Mendoza,
a known organizing committee member, who was included in the layoff).
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO. 1007
for lack of work, that they were being laid off on a seniority basis, and that they
would be recalled as soon as possible. Set forth below are the basic facts concerning
the employees laid off:
Name Ilued Depaitment Operation
Dennis Mendoza________________________ 10-14-64 Hassocks and accessories______________ Boxer
Gary Wensuc--------------------------- 10-20-64 ----- do-------------------------------- Tufter.
John Siebuhr___________________________ 10-21-64 ----- do-------------------------------- Do.
Dale Haney---------------------------- 10-15-14 Wue cushion -------------------------- Boxer
Royal Defoor___________________________ 10-23-64 Welt---------------------------------- Skitter.
James Hayes---------------------------- 10-15-64 Marine-------------------------------- Cutter.
Bibiano Sanchez________________________ 2- 9-65 Marme and seat covers________________ Janitor.
Wayne Stockebrand (part-time)________ 1962 Utility man throughout the plant;
The above-named seven full-time employees, all having been hired on or after
October 14, 1964, had the lowest plantwide seniority of all the Company's employ-
ees. One other hassocks and accessories department employee Harold Posey, who
was also hired on October 4, 1964, was not laid off. Although both Posey and
Mendoza were not performing precisely the same operation in the department at
the time of the layoff, they were both carried on the Company's seniority list as
boxers in the hassocks and accessories department. In addition, as indicated above,
the Company also laid off Wayne Stockebrand on February 19. Stockebrand had
worked for the Company part time since 1962 while attending college. At the time
of his layoff Stockebrand was boxing marine items. Stockebrand was normally trans-
ferred from operation to operation, wherever an employee was needed to fill in.
No male employees were hired during the period of the layoffs. Eight female
employees were hired during the period of the layoff and four female employees
either quit or were terminated during this period. None of the female employees
hired was assigned to operations customarily performed by men.
Shortly after the Union lost the election on Friday, March 26, the Company
decided to recall the laid off employees (with the exception of Bibiano Sanchez
whose case is discussed below). The Company did make offers of reinstatement to
all the laid off employees except Sanchez. These offers were not necessarily to their
former or substantially equivalent jobs. Mendoza returned to work on the following
Monday, March 29, and Siebuhr on the following Wednesday. Defoor returned on
April 5. The other laid off employees failed to return. In Wensuc 's case , his failure
to return was due to his having entered military service.
b. The Company's knowledge of the union sympathies of the men laid off
Of the eight employees laid off, only one who was on the payroll on January 20
had not signed a union card. The Company admittedly was aware that two, James
Hayes and Dennis Mendoza, were on the union organizing committee. Two others
of the eight, Wensuc and Siebuhr, worked in the hassocks and accessories depart-
ment in which Supervisor Drumwright had been so active in questioning his subor-
dinates about their union sympathies or engaging them in discussions about the
Union. Eight of Drumwright's subordinates, including Harold Posey, testified to con-
versations with Drumwright about the Union. Posey, it will be recalled, told Drum-
wright that he did not think too much of the Union. Word of Posey's lack of sym-
pathy with the Union reached Superintendent Jenks, as Jenks' testimony indicates.
As above stated, Posey was not laid off, although he had the same seniority as Den-
nis Mendoza. There is other testimony which indicates that the Company had knowl-
edge of the union sympathies of the men laid off. James Hayes testified without
contradiction that Superintendent Jenks told him, when he went back after his lay-
off to inquire when he might expect to be called back, that the Company laid off
"nonunion people" "as well as union people."
While there is additional testimony in the cases of Hayes and Sanchez which, if
credited, strongly suggests that antiunion considerations motivated the Company's
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
selection of them for layoff, in the case of Sanchez, I do not credit his testimony,13
and in the case of Hayes, I find it unnecessary to resolve the conflicting testimony.14
c. The Company's contentions regarding the layoffs
General Manager Jones ascribed the February 19 layoff to the fact that the Com-
pany's shipments of finished products were down considerably at a time when the
Company should have been going into one of its busiest seasons. At the hearing
Jones relied on a study of the Company's records showing that the dollar value of
the Company's shipments to customers, comparing approximately the first 4 months
of 1965 with the corresponding period in 1964, showed a substantial drop in 1965.
In his testimony, Jones referred to these figures as sales figures. Superintendent
Jenks, who also participated in the decision to put the layoff into effect, testified
that-the basis for the decision was lack of work. When asked how he determined
that there was a lack of work, Jenks answered as follows: "Total orders by depart-
ments were down as much in some cases as 50 percent, units on order as compared
to 1965 to 1964." Later in his testimony Jenks elaborated as follows:
On February 2, I checked total units on orders and orders that were to be
scheduled for immediate delivery. Our accessory total units showed that we
were down 21,000 pieces over the-in 1965, we were down over 1964, 20,000
pieces. In our marine department it reflected 8,000 pieces down, which is of
some concern, Grave concern.
The testimony of Jones and Jenks concerning the drop in shipments and orders
on hand is not wholly meaningful, at least insofar as providing an explanation for
the layoff is concerned, without information as to the number of employees during
the comparable period in 1964. To illustrate, if the Company had only half as many
employees in 1965 as in 1964 and yet produced more than half as many items,
there would be less need for a layoff in 1965 than in 1964, even though shipments
in 1965 might be down almost one half in 1965 below the 1964 level. The Com-
pany has not furnished any information concerning the number of its employees
in 1964.
It cannot be assumed that the number of Company's employees remained fairly
constant from 1964 to 1965 because the record shows that turnover is substantial at
'a Sanchez testified that Jenks told him on February 19 that "he was going to lay [him]
off because the Union was coming in but he was going to call [him] back." About a week
after the election, according to Sanchez, he went back to the plant and inquired about
getting his job back. On this occasion Jenks told him, said Sanchez, that he was not going
to be taken back "because [he] came in and vote[d]." Jenks denied having said any such
thing on either occasion. It would have been completely out of character for Jenks to have
made such incriminating remarks. Sanchez' testimony is rejected.
14 Hayes went back to the plant on March 17, less than 2 weeks before the first of the
laid off employees was called back to work, and asked Jenks when he would be recalled.
Hayes' testimony concerning Jenks' response and the conversation which followed is set
forth below:
"Not right now," he says , "I have no idea because the sales are still off in every
department ," and he brought out , he went and got a list and showed it to me which
indicated the sales in every department were off and he said , "As you can see they
are off and I don't know when I will be able to call you back." And then I asked him
if the fact that I had anything to do with the union and that I was a union organizer
had anything to do with the layoff and he says, "There would have been a layoff at
that time had the-union been trying to organize at the plant or not because of lack
of work, but," he says, "to be perfectly honest with you we have never laid off a
cutter because we spend a lot of money training a cutter," and he says,
This portion of Hayes' testimony is corroborated by Jenks. However, the following por-
tion of Hayes' testimony is vigorously denied by Jenks:
I want to be perfectly honest with you, Jim, had you not been a union organizer or
strictly for the union we would have found some way to keep you.
It appears unlikely to me that Jenks would have made such a bald admission of the
antiunion motivation behind Hayes' inclusion in the,layoff. It would be inconsistent with
Jenks' conduct throughout the case. As found below, Jenks' transgressions have been of
a much more subtle variety. However, in view of my finding below that the layoff as a
whole was discriminatively motivated, I find it unnecessary to resolve this conflict in the
testimony.
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO. 1009
the plant.15 Consequently the figures as to the drop in shipments alone do not give
an accurate measure of the amount of work available for the employees in the vari-
ous departments on February 19. And, as shown below, the figures as to the total
orders on hand were in a definite uptrend in the period from December 1964 through
March 1965.
Moreover, a drop in the Company's shipments compared with a year earlier does
not necessarily result in less work for the employees laid off for two reasons. First,
the items being shipped are not necessarily the items being currently produced. They
may be items manufactured weeks or months earlier. This is shown by the figures
concerning the number of items made and shipped in the months of December 1964
through March 1965, which are given below. No necessary correlation appears. Sec-
ondly, the employees laid off were engaged in work closely related to the manufac-
turing process. None of them was engaged in a strictly shipping operation. Thus, if
the Company continued actually to produce during the period immediately preced-
ing the layoff the same number, or a larger number of its manufactured products,
than in the preceding month, for example, then it is wholly immaterial, insofar as
the question of the amount of work available for the employees laid off is con-
cerned, that currently shipments were below the level of the preceding year. The fig-
ures discussed below concerning the Company's production and backlog of unfilled
orders establish that, with the exception of wire cushions, the Company's produc-
tion at the time of the layoff was at least at the level of the Company's production
in January 1965 and, in most departments affected by the layoff the Company was
producing at a higher rate on February 16, when it decided to put the layoff into
effect, than it had in January 1965. In addition, these figures show that the Com-
pany's backlog of unfilled orders steadily increased in all departments affected by
the layoffs in January, February, and March, 1965.
d. The facts concerning the Company's production and unfiled orders
Two of the employees laid off, Gary Wensuc and John Siebuhr, were tufters in
the hassocks and accessories department.16 The Company's records show the follow-
ing as to the number and value of hassocks made, shipped 17 and on order in the
months in question:
HASSOCKS
Month to - Made Shipped Value's On order
12-23-64 17,871 18,702 $81,990 1,358
1-29-65 11, 343 12,817 43, 487 3,987
2-16-65 109,013 5,994 ______________ 5,701
2-26-65 12,418 11 , 062 45, 739 3, 786
3-31-65 14 , 379 12,164 62,285 6,364
The above figures show that after the Christmas rush in hassocks was over, the
work on hassocks progressed in a steady uptrend in January, February, and March,
1965.
ss In the first 3 weeks of January 1965, the Company hired 12 women, and the employ-
ment of 8 employees, including 4 men, was terminated for one reason or another.
10 For about 3 days before his layoff Siebuhr had been assigned to pounding pillows, but
this was admittedly a temporary assignment, and his layoff was from the hassocks
department.
14 Although for the reasons above stated, the figures for the number of items shipped
and their value are not material on the question of the availability of work for the laid
off employees (the shipments may have been from inventory and not current production),
they are included because they refute the suggestion which is implicit in the claim that a
layoff was necessary, that the Company's business was in a declining phase.
Is The value figures given in this and the following tables represent the value of the
company sales (shipments) for the entire month of December.
w In this and in the succeeding tables the number of items processed in February
through the 16th are given because Superintendent Jenks testified that the decision to make
the layoffs was reached on February 16.
264-188-67-vol. 161-65
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dennis Mendoz was a boxer of chair and chaise recovers in the hassocks and
accessories department . The Company's records show the following as to the num-
ber of chair and chaise recovers sewed , shipped, on order , and the value of all
accessories shipped: 20
CII AIR AND CHAISE RECOVERS
month to - Sewed Shipped Value On order
12-23-64 6, 618 1 , 596 $14 , 690 4, 372
1-29-65 10,388 5,970 43,487 9,222
2-16-65 8,918 1,597 ______________ 10,876
2-26-65 16,806 8,376 45,739 5,643
3-31-65 15,166 9,999 62,285 14,067
Dale Haney was one of two boxers of wire cushions in the seat cover and wire
cushion department. The Company's records show the following regarding the num-
ber of wire cushions made, shipped, and on order in the periods in question:
WIRE CUSHIONS
Mouth to - Made Shipped Value 16 On order
12-23-64 15,296 4,179 $10,329 3,776
1-29-65 18,696 7, 533 24, 703 6, 185
2-16-65 9,618 7,364 -------------- 21,680
2-26-65 14, 897 17, 484 47, 470 22, 764
3-31-65 14 , 533 26, 351 95,999 29,036
While the number of wire cushions produced in January , February , and March,
1965 was in a downtrend during this period , the Company 's backlog of unfilled
orders jumped considerably during these months, despite greatly increased shipments
in February and March . From this it appears that the reduced level of production
of wire cushions was the result , not of the lack of orders to work on , but rather of
an internal company decision to permit production to fall behind its backlog of
unfilled orders 21
James Hayes was a cutter in the marine department . The Company 's figures as to
the number of items made in the marine department on successive dates in Decem-
ber 1964 and early 1965 give an approximation of the amount of work available for
Hayes at the time of his layoff. Also included are the figures for the value of the
marine items shipped each month. These figures are as follows:
MARINE DEPARTMENT ITEMS
Month to- Made Value On older
12-23-64 11 , 892 $20 , 005 18,382
1-29-65 12,239 29, 943 8, 193
2-16-65 7, 337 ______________ 9,327
2-26-65 12 600 30, 313 11, 294
3-31-65 11, 135 50,242 19,581
The above figures show a fairly constant level of production in the marine depart-
ment and a steadily increasing backlog of unfilled orders.
20 The value figures include the value not only of the chair and chaise recovers shipped,
but also the value of other accessories made in the department
21 Production of seat covers may have dropped in part due to the fact that occasionally
as many as four female employees in the department were engaged part time in the boxing
operation which Haney had performed before his layoff . Superintendent Jenks testified that
female operators or inspectors performed boxing operations on occasions for as much as
3 or 4 hours a day. Naturally the layoff of one of two boxers , with only a small drop in
production , made it very difficult for the remaining boxer to get the work done.
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO. 1011
The marine department figures above stated are also relevant in the case of Bibi-
ano Sanchez, who was a janitor in the area of the marine and seat cover depart-
ments. According to the Company, because of the asserted dropoff in the work in
these departments and resulting decrease in the accumulation of scrap materials, it
was possible to dispense with the services of one of the, janitors and to consolidate
his areas with those of other janitors. The figures above set forth as to the marine
department production do, not bear out the Company's contention regarding the
reason for laying off Sanchez since they show an approximately stable level of pro-
duction in the marine department in the months December 1964 through March
1965.
Nor do the figures for seat cover production support the Company's contention
regarding the alleged decreasing need for Sanchez' janitorial services. The figures as
to the number of seat covers made in the department show a steadily increasing
volume of production in the period December 1964 through March 1965. They are
as follows:
Seat Covers
Month to- Made On order
12-23-64 3,260 1,943
1-29-65 4,250 401
2-16-65 2,452 701
2-26-65 4,287 1,505
3-31-65 5,460 2 970
The two remaining employees in the layoff were Roy DeFoor and part-time
employee Wayne Stockebrand. DeFoor operated the slitter which produced welting
or binding which is used on most of the items manufactured by the Company.
Defoor was the only employee in what was called the welt department. Superin-
tendent Jenks testified that after Defoor's layoff, the Company relieved its truck-
driver of one of his two trips to the dump a day and that in the remaining half day
the truckdriver performed the slitter operation. The truckdriver had previously
operated the slitter.
I have detailed in the preceding pages the actual figures taken from the Com--
pany's records as to the number of hassocks, chair and chaise recovers, seat covers,
wire cushions, and various marine items made at the Company's plant in the period
involved in this case. These are items-on which welting or binding is used. These
figures, which show an uptrend in the amount of work being done in most of these
departments, excepting the seat cushion department where there was a 'small de-
crease, indicate that the Company's requirements for binding should also have been
at least as great at the time of the layoffs as in January 1965, before the Company
decided that layoffs would be necessary. Under all the circumstances I cannot accept
the Company's contention that the Company's need for binding dropped to such an
extent that the Company's truckdriver could meet it in 4 hours a day.
With regard to Wayne Stockebrand, the part-time employee who filled in for
employees who were absent in his available time away from college classes, I am
convinced from the figures as to the amount of work produced in the assertedly
slow departments that the Company had as much or more work available for him
on February 16, than it had previously when it was able to utilize his services to the
limited extent that they were available.
e. Conclusions
The figures set forth above indicate that in the departments affected by the lay-
offs, excepting the wire cushion department , there was as much, if not more work
available at the time of the layoffs than there had been in the preceding month or
two. During this same time the backlog of unfilled orders gradually increased. This
meant that the Company was actually falling behind in keeping abreast of its pro-
duction requirements . Thus, the situation in these departments on February 16,
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
when the Company decided on the layoffs was not one normally calling for even
a temporary reduction in force 22
In view of this state of affairs I cannot help but regard the testimony of General
Manager Jones and Superintendent Jenks regarding the dropoff in shipments in
1965 as compared with 1964 as misleading. Nor do I comprehend Superintendent
Jenks' reliance on the drop in the number of total units on order as justification for
the layoffs. As stated above, the Company's backlog of unfilled orders steadily
increased in January, February, and March, 1965, despite increased production.
While the Company's records as to the number of items on brder do not show
whether they are for immediate or future delivery, there was no reason why these
orders could not be worked on and completed in advance, except the bulky items
requiring stuffing. Furthermore, the Company, as Jenks testified, normally plans its
production 6 months in advance. It has not even been suggested by the Company
that its projections for 1965 as a whole contemplated that 1965 would be a poorer
year than 1964. The record shows that the Company employed more employees at
the time of the hearing in December 1965 than at the time of the layoffs. Under
all the circumstances I conclude that there was no normal business justification for
the Company's layoffs in the hassocks and accessories, seat cover and wire cushion,
and marine departments in February 1965.
There remains the question as to the Company's true reason for the layoff.
The Company's conduct from the inception of the union organizing drive to the
election leaves no doubt but that the Company was strongly opposed to the organi-
zation of its employees by the Union. Six of the eight employees laid off had
signed union cards. The Company admits knowing that two of the eight employees
laid off, Hayes and Mendoza, were members of the union organizing committee.
The record indicates that the Company had knowledge of the union sympathies of
many of its employees. Supervisor Drumwright and Superintendent Jenks had fre-
quent conversations with employees about the Union. In addition, I have alluded to
the testimony of Hayes that Superintendent Jenks mentioned to him that a non-
union employee was included in the layoff, which suggests that Jenks had knowl-
edge of the union sympathies of those included in the layoff. I have also referred
to the Company's contrasting treatment of Harold Posey, whom the Company had
reason to believe was not sympathetic to the Union. Posey, who had the same sen-
iority as Mendoza and who worked in the same department at almost the same
job, was not laid off, whereas Mendoza, whom the Company knew was on the
organizing committee, was. As soon as the election was over, and the Company no
longer confronted with the possibility of having to deal with the Union, it decided
to recall the laid off employees.
The employees selected for layoff were the male employees hired by the Com-
pany in the past 4 months. During this same 4-month period the Company had
also hired 15 female employees who were not included in the layoffs. Since the first
of August 1964, the Company had hired a total of 24 additional male and female
employees. The layoff of all of the male employees hired in the past 4 months
would naturally tend to make the female employees hired during this period appre-
hensive about their continued employment. These layoffs might even give rise to
concern on the part of the 24 additional employees hired since August 1, 1964,
that they might be next on the layoff list, particularly if they had signed union
cards. In any event, I conclude upon all of the facts of the case that the Company
put the layoff into effect at the start of the election campaign in order to play upon
the employees' fears that their continued support of the Union might place their
jobs in jeopardy. Needless to say, employees who are anxious about keeping their
jobs are less likely to take action which will obviously incur their employer's dis-
pleasure. The Company's position regarding the employees' affiliation with the
ra In reaching this conclusion I do not wish to imply that there was sufficient work on the
employees' regular job every day for every employee. Due to the large number of items
manufactured by the Company and the variations in the items produced and the fluctuation
in the numbers of each item made it appears that considerable shifting of employees from
operation to operation must be necessary to achieve the maximum utilization of each em-
ployee's time. But this, I conclude, was a normal situation at the plant. In these circum-
stances, I do not deem it controlling on the question of whether the layoff as a whole was
necessary, that work temporarily may have been slack for James Hayes at the time of
the layoffs . This was a problem which faced the Company continually in the operation of
its business. In fact the Company's turnover was such that it might well have anticipated
an attrition sufficient to take care of any temporary excess staffing.
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO. 1 013
Union had been made abundantly clear by this time. Under all the circumstances
I conclude that the Company's February 19 layoff was one of the major steps in
the Company's campaign to defeat the Union in the election. Accordingly, I find
that the layoffs of February 19, 1965, violated Section 8(a)(3)-and (1) of the Act.
2. The discharge of Mildred Jarvis on March 26
Mildred Jarvis was hired on March 1, 1965, and was assigned as floorgirl in the
awning department. The floorgirl is responsible for passing bundles of awning
pieces from one sewing machine operator to another, picking up the completed
awnings from around the sewing machines, inspecting them for obvious flaws and
returning them to the operator for repairs if necessary, and carrying away the
completed awnings. The sewing machine operators are paid piecework rates and
their earnings suffer if the floorgirl fails to handle her job efficiently.
Jarvis failed promptly to pass along the completed bundles, failed to inspect
them with sufficient care and adopted an indifferent attitude toward the operators,
in general. One operator, Elwyn Hart, became so dissatisfied with Jarvis' work as a
floorgirl that she insisted to the inspector, Laura Jordan, that Jarvis no longer serv-
ice her machine. This was arranged. Jordan passed along the operators' complaints
about Jarvis to Ernest Stockstill, the supervisor in the awning department, and to
Superintendent Jenks.
Finally, as a result of complaints that Jarvis could not perform the work in the
awning department, that she could not get along with the girls there, and she was
a "whiner," Jenks transferred Jarvis to the marine department on March 23. In
this department Jarvis was assigned to operate a machine which used heat to seal
a plastic bag which is used as an insert in life vests . Kapok is scattered in the
atmosphere in the course of this operation. Jarvis not only had trouble effecting
the proper seal on the bags but the kapok bothered her lungs. Jarvis informed
Charles Hoyle, the supervisor over the marine department on the morning of
March 24 that she had coughed up blood the night before, and inquired whether
the kapok would bother her lungs. Later that day Hoyle told Jenks about Jarvis'
complaint about coughing up blood the preceding evening. The two men then
decided to let Jarvis go at the end of the week. Jenks spoke to Jones about the
matter, and mentioned the complaints which he had received about Jarvis while she
was in the awning department. Jones approved the decision to let Jarvis go that
Friday afternoon and instructions were issued that day to the payroll department
to get Jarvis' final checks ready.
The following Friday, March 26, was the day of the election. On the morning
of the election a number of the girls in the marine department were wearing signs
reading "NO" pinned to their blouses. (The official ballot to be used in the election
was to be voted "YES" or "NO" on the question "Do you wish to be represented
for the purposes of collective bargaining by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, AFL-CIO?") After inquiring of one of the girls as to whether it was
permissible to wear such signs , Jarvis pinned a 3 by 5 inch card on her blouse on
which was printed "YES" in large letters. Later Superintendent Jenks came by and
asked her, "Mrs. Jarvis, you do know you are not entitled to vote in this union
election, don't you?" Jarvis answered that she was aware of this fact. The fore-
going is Jarvis' testimony.
About 4 p.m., after the election was over, Jenks went up to her at her work sta-
tion, accompanied by Supervisor Hoyle. Jenks told her, according to her testimony,
"Mrs. Jarvis, as you very well know, you did not work out well in the awning
department and you have been complaining about the kapok and we just can't use
you any more." 23
In view of the fact that Jarvis' only prominent union activity occurred after the
Company decided to discharge her, this could not have been a factor in her dis-
charge. With the exception of the testimony of Jarvis herself, the testimony is uni-
formly to the effect that Jarvis did not perform satisfactorily in either of the depart-
23 In making the foregoing findings I have had to resolve various conflicts in the testi-
mony. In part I have credited Jarvis' testimony and in part I have accepted the testimony
of the Company's witnesses. With respect to the timing of the decision to discharge Jarvis,
which the General Counsel argues was not arrived at until after she wore 'the vote "YES"
sign , I have accepted the inutually corroborative testimony of Hoyle, Jenks, and Jones that
this decision was reached on Wednesday, March 24. The General Counsel has presented no
evidence to the contrary.
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ments in which she worked . While it appears that the Company did not overextend
itself to give Jarvis a chance to develop in the marine department , to which she
was assigned 2 or 3 days before her discharge , I find that the General Counsel has
failed to establish by a preponderance of the testimony that the discharge of Jarvis
was motivated by antiunion considerations . The allegations of the complaint con-
cerning Mildred Jarvis are hereby dismissed.
3. The discharge of Bibiano Sanchez on March 31
As found above , Sanchez, the janitor in the marine and seat cover department,
was laid off with the others on February 19. About the time the Company recalled
the other laid off employees , the Company decided not to recall Sanchez. On
March 31, 1965, the Company issued a separation notice to Sanchez stating , as fol-
lows: "Unable , to perform duties satisfactorily during trial period ." Sanchez had
been hired on February 9, 1965, and had only worked 10 days at the time of the
layoff . General Manager Jones explained the Company's failure to recall Sanchez,
as follows: "He was on a probationary period . Several of our supervisors said
please don 't bring him back, he couldn 't sweep the floor or couldn 't do anything."
I credit Jones' testimony in this regard and accordingly dismiss the allegations of
the complaint based on Sanchez' discharge.
D. Conclusions concerning the Company's acts of interference, restraint, and
coercion and its i of usal to bargain collectively with the Union
1. The law and its application on the facts of the case
It has long been settled that an election is not the only means by which a union's
representative status may be established . United Mine Workers vs. Arkansas Oak
Flooring Co., 351 U.S. 62, 71-72; N.L.R.B. v. Sunrise Lumber & Trim Corp., 241
F.2d 620, 624 (C.A. 2), cert. denied 335 U.S. 818. Thus, there is no absolute
right vested in an employer to demand an election . Where a union has obtained
authorization cards signed by a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit
designating the union as their bargaining representative , an employer violates Sec-
tion 8 ( a)(5) if, absent a good -faith doubt of the union's majority status, he refuses
to recognize and bargain with the union . Joy Silk Mills v. N.L.R.B., 195 F.2d 732,
741 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 341 U.S. 914 ; N.L.R.B. v. Philamon Laboratories,
inc., 298 F.2d 176, 179 (C.A. 2), cert. denied 370 U S. 919; Colson Corp. v.
N.L.R.B., 347 F.2d 128, 135-136 (CA. 8); N.L-R.B. v. Bedford-Nugent Coip.,
317 F.2d 861, 864 (C.A. 7); N.L.R.B.- v. Elliott-Williams Co. Inc., 345 F.2d 460,
463-464 (C.A. 7); N.L.R.B. v. Cumberland Shoe Corp., 351 F.2d 917 (C.A. 6);
N.L:R.B. "v. Gotham Shoe Manufacturing Co. Inc., 359 F.2d 684 (C.A. 2). The
Company does not dispute this proposition . It "simply contends that the Joy Silk
doctrine is not applicable upon the facts of this case.
'The Union passed out folders 'inviting employees to join on January 7, 1965.
The very next day the Company had all of its employees assembled in groups and
had Jones , its general manager, address them . After frankly stating that the Com-
pany was "opposed to unionization ," Jones listed various benefits which he pointed
out that they had obtained without the help of any union . In a question-and-
answer period at the end of one of these talks , Jones brought out that there was
no assurance that present benefits would not be lost if the union organized the
plant , and added 'that it depended upon the negotiations . Subsequently the Com-
pany in communications to its employees repeatedly made statements to the effect
that bargaining negotiations might result in the loss of present benefits. While the
Company also noted that benefits possibly might be improved , the emphasis was
placed on the adverse effect on existing benefits of union negotiations.
-'Within 3 days after the union organizing meeting on January 12, the Union suc-
ceeded in obtaining , the signatures of a substantial majority of the employees on
cards authorizing the Union to represent them for collective-bargaining purposes.
On January 18 , the Company sent a letter to each employee which, after again
stressing the benefits which they had achieved without union pressure, stated:
These outsiders have promised that all of the benefits we now give will be
continued . This is a false promise. What you might be able to get depends
upon negotiations . Nothing you have now is assured . Any negotiations may
result in less than what you have now.
The letter concluded with the suggestion , "Think twice before signing everything.
If you have already signed a card , you may ask for it back ." The next day in a
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO. 1015
release to the employees in which it again stressed the possibility of the employees'
losing of present benefits, the Company urged as follows: "If you have already
signed a card, ask for it back before it is too late." Later that day the Company,
in a second release, toned down its earlier request to the employees to withdraw
from the Union, stating that it was up to the employees to decide whether to with-
draw, and that whatever decision they reached would not affect their jobs.
As stated above, the Union, by letter dated, January 18, requested the Company
to recognize and bargain collectively with it, and offered to prove its majority status
by a card check to be conducted by a disinterested third party. The Company, in
its letter of January 20, refused and insisted that the Union go to an election.
Later on, a day or two after the Company received the letter from the Union
notifying it of the names of the members of its organizing committee, the Com-
pany had the plant superintendent summon each member of the committee away
from his or her work and took them to the office of General Manager Jones, the
Company's top official at Emporia. Each committee member was spoken to indi-
vidually by Jones. Although there is no specific evidence that any of the committee
members had been permitting any union activities to interfere with the work of
either himself or of others, Jones warned each committee member that "any out-
side activities that interfered with [their] work would call for dismissal." This
warning was given the employees even though Jones, himself, had previously sum-
moned all of the employees away front their work and given them a talk in which
he urged them to reject the Union., And, as found above, Superintendent Jenks
in the coming weeks repeatedly had employees taken away from their work to his
office where, in talks lasting more than an hour, he sought to dissuade them from
their adherence to the Union. Particularly in view of the frequency with which
the Company's officials and supervisors utilized company time to convey their
arguments to employees against the Union, necessarily interfering with production-
at times, Jones' warnings to the committee members individually had a coercive
impact and violated Section 8,(a) (1) of the Act.24
The Company agreed to a consent election on February 18 and it was scheduled
for March 26. The very next day, February 19, the Company laid off the eight
last hired male employees. As found below, this layoff was not justified by the
amount of work on hand at the time and the Company's backlog of unfilled orders,
and was motivated by the Company's desire to raise fears in the minds of the
Company's other newly hired employees, of which there were many, as to the
possible adverse consequences of continuing to support the Union.
Lee Drumwright, the supervisor in the hassocks and accessories department, in
which almost a third of the Company's employees work, was active from the very
beginning of the union organizing drive in-,questioning his subordinates about their
attendance at union meetings, their union sympathies, and the union leanings of
other employees. On one occasion, in February, Drumwright warned Richard
Solis, a member of the union organizing committee, that committee members
"would probably be let go, after the election." Such a threat unquestionably consti-
tuted interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of -Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act; In light of the threats of Drumwright and Jenks, discussed above, and the
layoffs of February 19, I find that Drumwright's questioning of employees about
union matters ' assumed a coercive aspect and constituted a further violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.25
While the- Company urges that General Manager Jones' so-called neutrality talk
to a group or groups of the company employees about February 19 relieved the
Company from all responsibility for Drumwright's threat and his extensive ques-
tioning of employees, I find no merit in this contention in view of the fact that
Jones himself had threatened the members of the organizing committee individually
with reprisals and Jones himself was responsible for the discriminatory layoffs of
February 19. In, these circumstances the employees could place little reliance on
Jones' statement that the Company would refrain from threats and interrogation.
'While it ' is not necessary, to establish a violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act,
to show that the conduct in question actually had a coercive effect, the record in this case
shows that Susan Blount, after thus being warned by Jones, went to Superintendent Jenks
and- asked whether her job was in danger because of her being on the committee.
2 Sue Aggers testified that Supervisor Hoyle of the wire cushion department threatened
a group of employees that he t'was afraid that the plant would be closed, down if ,they
went union." Hoyle denied having made any such statement. No other employee, attributed
any kind of antiunion remark to Hoyle. Under all the circumstances I credit Hoyle's
denial.
1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As the day of the election drew nearer, Superintendent Jenks actively engaged
in antiunion conversations with union supporters. To Committee Member Larry
Noble, Jenks, after reiterating the Company's position that the Union had falsely
stated that the employees could not lose anything in the negotiations, went on to
say that "during negotiations, both sides 'would sit down with a blank sheet of
paper and they would negotiate from there." I find that this statement, in the
setting in which it was made, conveyed the message that the selection of the Union
would result in the loss of existing benefits. Similar statements that negotiations
would "start from scratch" have been held by the Board and the courts to consti-
tute interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
See Marsh Supermarkets, Inc., 140 NLRB 899, 901-902, enfd. 227 F.2d 109 (C.A.
7); Surprenant Mfg. Co., 144 NLRB 507, 517, enfd. in this respect 341 F.2d 756,
58 LRRM 2484, 2487 (C.A. 6); Federal Envelope Company, Omaha, Nebraska,
A Division of Nationwide Papers Incorporated, 147 NLRB 1030, 1040, footnote 25.
Jenks also uttered a veiled threat of discharge against Committee Member Marcia
Scott when he warned her that he could have fired her because of reports which
he had received about her "pushing" the Union on company time, irrespective of
the truth of the reports. Even though Jenks might lawfully have discharged Scott
for misusing company time, his warning to her in the circumstances in which it
occurred went far beyond the needs of preventing interference with the work of the
plant, and in these circumstances tended to have a coercive effect. Similarly beyond
the bounds of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act was Superintendent Jenks' action in
granting Clements' request for temporary wage relief in the manner in which he
did. By expressly linking the granting of this relief to Clements' giving her support
to his antiunion drive, Jenks was utilizing a grant of a benefit in a way forbidden
by the Act. It matters not that the benefit granted was not a large one or that it
was reasonable under all the circumstances to grant the wage adjustment made.
The Act forbids the utilization of an employer's power to grant economic or other
benefits in such a way as to further its antiunion ends.
In the week or 10 days before the election, the Company intensified its propa-
ganda campaign against the Union. Its releases to the employees, which were put
out every day or so, all ended with an emphatic "Vote NO." In some of its releases
the Company, purporting to explain the consequences of union membership, issued
interpretations of selected union documents, based upon piecemeal presentation of
the contents of the documents. Such a presentation , in my opinion , tends to give
rise to misleading impressions among the employees concerning various conse-
quences of union membership, including their right to control their decision to go
out on strike.
On March 25, the day before the election, the Company issued its final appeal
to the employees to "VOTE NO!" In this release the Company , among other things,
repeated the warning which General Manager Jones first uttered on January 8,
when apprised for the first time of the union organizing drive , that a union con-
tract "can mean less than you have now." This was the fourth time the Company
had stressed this theme in releases to its employees.
In the context in which these statements were made I conclude that they
amounted to warnings that the employees might receive less in bargaining negotia-
tions than they presently enjoyed , and as such constituted threats of reprisals out-
side the protection of Section 8(c) of the Act. The Company repeatedly reminded
the employees in its releases that it was the Company and not the Union which
decided what benefits were feasible to grant. Several times it cited the benefits
which it had voluntarily granted without any prodding from a union. While the
Company purported to be stating the possible consequences of lawful bargaining
negotiations , the emphasis was placed each time on the possible adverse effects.
Superintendent Jenks' comment to Larry Noble that the parties would negotiate
from "a blank sheet of paper" reinforces my conclusion that the Respondent
intended by harping on this theme to convey the idea that benefits would be less
with a union than without . The statements in question were integral and basic part
of a deliberately planned course of conduct aimed at defeating the Union in the
election . This course of conduct , as found above, included discriminatory layoffs
and threats against union committeemen by the Company 's top officials. For the'
foregoing reasons, in my opinion , it is reasonable to infer that the Company
intended by the statements in question to convey' the impression to' the employees
that it might withdraw some existing benefits if it were forced to negotiate with the
Union. Here, as in N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Company, 375 U.S. 405, 409,
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO . 1017
"Employees are not likely to miss the inference that the source of benefits now
conferred is also the source from which future benefits must flow and which may
dry up if it'is not obliged." See also footnote 3, page 409.
The course of conduct summarized in the preceding paragraphs, in my opinion,
interfered with the employees' freedom of choice of representatives in the election
and 'precludes any finding that the Company acted in .good faith-in insisting upon
an election. I would reach this conclusion even were I in error in finding that the
Company's harping on the theme that a union contract could mean a loss of
present benefits. The Company scarcely argues that it had a factual basis for
doubting the Union's claim of majority status. It merely asserts that it is "incredi-
ble" that the Union could have signed up such a large number of its employees in
such a short period of time. Something more than such an assertion is required
to constitute a valid basis for a good-faith doubt as to a union's majority status.
Under all the circumstances I find that here, as in N.L.R.B. v. Joy Silk Mills, 185
F.2d 732, 741 (C.A.D.C.) cert. denied 341 U.S. 914, the Respondent's conduct was
"due to a desire to gain time and to take action to dissipate the Union's majority."
In these circumstances, the appropriate remedy for the Company's course of con-
duct leading to the Union's defeat in the election is an order to bargain collectively
with the Union, if in fact a majority of the Company's employees in an appropriate
bargaining unit had authorized the Union -to bargain collectively in their behalf
by January 20, 1965, when the Company received the Union's request for recog-
nition and bargaining. Bernel Foam Products Co., 146 NLRB 1277. See also
N.L.R.B. v. Cumberland Shoe Corp., 351 F.2d 917, 820-921 (C.A. 6), and cases
therein cited.26
Furthermore, even if it be assumed that' `the' Company acted in good faith in
insisting upon an election. in the first place, a bargaining order is nevertheless
appropriate to undo the effects of the Company's subsequent unfair labor practices.
The courts have .held that in refusal-to-bargain situations like the present, where
the employer's unfair -labor practices have rendered the holding of a free and fair
election impossible, the Board may enter the usual bargaining order even though
the Union loses the election. N.L.R.B. v. Stow Manufacturing Co., 217 F.2d 900,
9b4-905 (C.A. 2), cert. denied 348 U.S. 964; Irving Air Chute Co. -v. N.L.R.B.,
350 F.2d ,176, '182 (C.A. 2);.N.L.R.B. v. Gotham Shoe Manufacturing Co., Inc.,
359 F.2d 684 '(C.A.' 2), and cases therein cited.
Finally, it has been held in a number of cases that where an employer's acts of
interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act dissi-
pate a union's majority and prevent the employees from freely exercising their
choice of representatives, the Board may, in order to remedy these unfair labor
practices, issue an order directing the employer to bargain collectively with the
Union upon request, provided that the Union had a majority at all relevant times.
Greystone Knitwear Corp. and Donwood, Ltd., 136 NLRB 573, 575-576, enfd. per
curiam 311 F.2d 794 (C.A. 2); Summit Mining Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 260 F.2d
894, 900 (C.A. 3); Piasecki Aircraft Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 280 F.2d 575,
591-592 (C.A. 3), cert. denied 364 U.S. 933; Editorial "El Imparcial" Inc. v.
N.L.R.B., 278 F.2d 184, 187 (C.A. 1); D. H. Holmes Company Ltd. v. N.L.R.B.,
179 F.2d 876, 879-880 (C.A. 5); Teamsters Local No. 152 v. N.L.R.B;, 343 F.2d
20The complaint alleges that the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
denying the Union's request, made in its original letter requesting recognition, for equal
time to answer company arguments against joining the Union and equal access to the
Company's bulletin boards. Assuming, but not deciding that the Union made an adequate
request for such equal treatment, I find that the circumstances of the case are not such
as to warrant finding that the Company has violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act in these
respects. Since Livingston Shirt Corporation, 107 NLRB 400, the Board has not found an
employer's denial of such requests violative of the Act unless the employer has main-
tained or discriminatorily enforced an unlawful or an excessively broad no-solicitation
rule. See General Electric Co., 156 NLRB 1247, 1250. It is not contended in this case that
the Company has either maintained or discriminatorily enforced an improper no-solicitation
rule. Particularly in view of the new rule laid down in Excelsior 'Underwear, Inc., 158
NLRB 1236, requiring employers in representation cases to furnish all parties at the
outset with lists of names and addresses of all employees eligible to vote, I regard it as
unwise to consider in this case departing from the Livingston Shirt rule. See General Elec-
tric Co., 156 NLRB at 1250. The denial of access allegations of the complaint as amended
are hereby dismissed.'
1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
307, 309 (C.A;D.C.) See also Western Aluminum of Oregon , Inc., 144 NLRB
1190 , 1191-92; Freeport Marble & Tile Co., 153 NLRB 810 , 59 LRRM 1561,
1565. Under the doctrine of this line of cases, also a bargaining order is appropri-
ate in this case.
2. The Union 's majority status in the appropriate unit on-January 20, 1965
For the purposes of the consent election the parties stipulated that "All pro-
duction and maintenance employees at the Employer 's Emporia, Kansas plant,
excluding office clerical employees , salesmen, guards and supervisors , as defined
in the Act" constitute an appropriate collective -bargaining unit . The Company
concedes , for the purposes of this case , that there were 172 employees in the
appropriate unit on January 20 , 1965, including Wayne Stockebrand whom I find
should be included in the appropriate unit as a regular part-time employee.27
Cards signed by 104 employees before January 20 , 1965 , were received in evi-
dence in this case 28 In addition , the record shows that Nancy Brown signed a card
on January 7 and mailed it to the Union , but it became lost. Thus, the record
shows that a total of 105 employees signed cards authorizing the Union to repre-
sent them for collective -bargaining purposes before January 20 , 1965 , the date on
which the Company received the Union 's letter requesting recognition.
a. The Company's contentions concerning the invalidity of
certain authorization cards
(1) Introduction
With the exception of the card of Anita Bitler which is discussed in the footnote
below, the Company does not challenge the authenticity of the signatures on the
authorization cards which were received in evidence in this case.29 While the Com-
pany does not challenge the authenticity of the remaining cards received in evidence
in this case , it does seriously contend that many cards received in evidence may
not be counted toward the Union 's majority because of alleged misrepresentation
made by union representatives to the signers before the cards were signed . First,
the Company contends that almost all of the cards relied upon by the Union are
27 The Company in Its brief takes no position with respect to the Inclusion of Stocke-
brand in the unit. While disagreeing with the reasoning underlying the Board's exclusion
from the unit in card-check cases of employees on a military leave of absence ( there were
three employees in this category on January 20, 1965 ), the Company does not take issue in
this case with the exclusion from the unit of the three employees on military leave.
21 The index to the official transcript of testimony and the official reporter 's marking
on the exhibit itself does not in every case reflect the fact that the card was received in
evidence . I have considered each case Individually and find that the cards of all employees
listed in appendixes C through G were received in evidence at the hearing. The cards of
109 employees were marked for identification in this case ( while the cards were marked
CC 9-1 through CC 9-110 , no card was identified as GC 9-34). The cards of Floyd Boes,
GC 9-14; Nancy Brown , GC 9-33 ( it was a second card signed after January 20 , 1965) ;
Thomas Brown , CC 9-23 , Barry Hodgson , GC 9-110 , and Wilma Tate, GC 9-108, were
not offered in evidence in this case.
29Bitler printed her name on the top line of the card which is preceded by the words
"Name ( Please sign ) :" All of the rest of the card , except the address, was filled in in
printing also . Bitler testified that she normally wrote out her signature in handscript.
Admittedly Bitler read the card before she affixed her name. The card on which Bitler
printed her name was one of a few used in the campaign which had an extra line for
signature at the bottom which was preceded by the word " Signed." Bitler left this line
blank. The Company contends that Bitler ' s card was not validly executed by her. The
Company also points to Bitler 's testimony that she did not intend to apply for member-
ship in the Union . Such testimony , as the Board and the courts have held ( see N .L.R.B. v.
Cumberland Shoe Corp ., 351 F.2d 917 , 920-921 ( C.A. 6) ), is unreliable in cases such as this
and I probably should not have permitted this testimony to stand . In any event , I do not
believe Bitler 's testimony in this regard. There is no evidence that Bitler at any time sought
to revoke her bargaining authorization although the Company had suggested this course.
See Indiana Rayon Corp ., 151 NLRB 130 . Under all the circumstances I conclude that
Bitler's action in printing her name on the card constituted an adoption by her of the text
of the card , including the bargaining authorization , and that the card has been sufficiently
authenticated to be counted . See Indiana Rayon Corp ., 151 NLRB 1294 ( card of Masters).
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO. 1019
invalid because they were obtained either by Patrick or by other union solicitors
acting under specific instructions from him to represent to those solicited that the
cards were to be used only to obtain an election and would not be used for any
other purpose, despite the unequivocal language of the bargaining authorization
contained on the card. Alternatively the Company contends that the cards of cer-
tain employees are invalid because of representations made to them individually
by union solicitors.
It is clear that as to any employees as to whom the record showed representa-
tions were timely made by union solicitors before they signed cards, that the cards
would be used only for the purpose of an election and not for any other purpose,
such cards would be invalid under the Board's holding in Cumberland Shoe Corp.,
144 NLRB 1268, enfd. 351 F.2d 917 (C.A. 6), and Gotham Shoe Mfg. Co., 145
NLRB 862, 873-874, enfd. 359 F.2d 684 (C.A. 2). It should be borne in mind,
however, that in situations where it becomes necessary to establish a union's major-
ity status by cards, that documents timely executed which unequivocally authorize
a labor organization to act as the collective-bargaining agent of the signers must
be treated as valid bargaining authorizations in the absence of showing of coercion
in their procurement or representations that "despite the purpose clearly and
expresssly stated on the cards themselves, the cards would be used only for a
different more limited purpose." Aero Corporation, 149 NLRB 1283, 1290. Under
the Cumberland Shoe and Aero decisions it is clear that a representation that "a
purpose of the cards was to secure a Board election" is not enough to invalidate
an otherwise valid bargaining authorization (144 NLRB at 1269). Or as stated in
Gotham Shoe, 149 NLRB at 874, "the tests for determining whether a card should
be counted is based, not upon what an employee subjectively intended or under-
stood but on (1) whether he was falsely told that the only purpose of the cards
was to secure an election, or (2) whether he was induced to sign by trickery or
beguilement." The court in the "Cumberland Shoe case expressly indicates its
approval of this line of reasoning (351 F.2d at 920).
(2) The Company's general contention regarding the
invalidity of authorization cards
The Company points to the testimony of a number of witnesses who testified
that Union Organizer Patrick stated at the January 12 meeting that the cards were
"only for an election" or that the "sole purpose of the cards is to get an election."
However, with few exceptions, this testimony was elicited by company counsel only
in answer to leading questions after the witness failed to give this response when
asked a nonleading question.
Other witnesses, who were not asked leading questions, testified to the contrary.
Charlotte Hopkins, a witness for the Company on this aspect of the case, testified
that Patrick had stated at the January 12 meeting that "the more cards that we got
and more signatures, this would be better negotiating and also that this would bring
up an election." When asked by the Company counsel "was anything said with ref-
erence to an election being the sole and only purpose of signing a union card," Hops
kins answered, "No, in so many words I think this would, but I don't think it was
directly like this." Cecil Nichols, a witness for the General Counsel, repeatedly
denied that Patrick had stated at the January 12 meeting that the "only purpose"
obtaining signatures on the cards was to get an election. When pressed by counsel
for the Company, Nichols stated that while Patrick mentioned an election, he did
so in connection with explaining the consequences of the Company's probable
refusal to grant the Union's request for recognition. John Bastin, who was called
by the General Counsel, also denied that Patrick said at this meeting that the only
purpose for signing a card was to have an election. Rather, according to Bastin,
Patrick stated that "they needed a certain percentage to sign it before we could go
ahead with our election." John Joss, a witness for the General Counsel, when asked
what was told him at the meeting as to the purpose of signing a card, replied, "Well,
they was going to represent us, it was kind of more or less to find out what it was
about right then."
For the reasons stated below I do not regard the testimony upon which the Com-
pany replies, which was largely elicited in response to leading questions, as very
convincing in the circumstances of this case. In the first place most of these wit-
nesses only testified to the bare fact that Patrick had stated that the cards would be
used "solely" for an election. They were unable to recall sufficient details about
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other, statements made by Patrick or other circumstances at the meeting such as
would indicate that they had a present recollection of the happenings at this
meeting.3o
Furthermore, all of the Company's employees had previously been asked by the
Company to fill out questionnaires in which one of the questions was "1. Did you
sign a union card under any of the following conditions or promises made to you
by the Union or its agent? . . . (d) that the sole purpose of signing a card was to
get a Labor Board election?" It does not take a very astute employee to sense from
the nature of this question that the Company was seeking an affirmative answer.
This fact alone .raises a question as to the usefulness of the questionnaires and the
statements , which were later taken from employees answering question 1 in the
affirmative, as an aid to arriving at the truth in this case. The full text of the ques-
tionnaire is attached hereto as Appendix B.31
Furthermore, despite the assurances given by the company attorney that no repris-
als would be taken against any employees because of information revealed in the
questionnaires or the statements, employees in my experience, are not able entirely
3' It should be noted that the employees were testifying concerning events at a union
meeting which had occurred 7 to 11 months earlier Naturally the employees' recollection
was not fresh. Patrick was talking about matters with which they were unfamiliar and
consequently their understanding of his remarks was imperfect. There was much confusion
at the January 12 meeting and it was difficult for employees to remember what Patrick
had said and what other employees (not representatives of the Union) had said. After
the meetings of January 12 and 19 there were many discussions among the employees as
to the consequences of having signed a union card, stimulated, no doubt, by the com-
munications from the Company stating its strong opposition to the Union and suggesting
that they withdraw. As pointed out below, it is understandable if in these circumstances
some employees In these discussions sought to minimize the significance of their having
signed a union card. It is also understandable that some employees; on the witness stand
almost a year later, might attribute to Patrick statements which they had beard from other
employees, not representatives of the Union. These are some of the reasons why I am
inclined to regard with skepticism the testimony of employees who were able to state, in
response to leading questions, little more than what was suggested in the question.
81 The circumstances of the Company's having the questionnaires filled out are as follows:
In May 1965, 3 months after the events in question, Superintendent Jenks asked em-
ployees individually to go up to the plant lunchroom where they were handed a copy of
the questionnaire by one of the attorneys for the Company. The attorney told the em-
ployees that answering the questionnaire was voluntary (the questionnaire also stated
at the top that the giving of information was "entirely voluntary" and that the ques-
tions were being asked as part of an investigation by the attorney for the Company into
unfair labor practice charges filed with the Board). Any employees answering that they
had signed a union card under some condition were subsequently asked by Jenks to return
to the lunchroom. There they were again told by an attorney for the Company the purpose
of the interview and that participation was voluntary. Then the attorney asked questions
and he wrote down the answers, in some cases rephrasing the witnesses answers The
employee was then asked to read the statement and sign. In some cases the employees
wrote out the statements themselves.
The statements, with few exceptions follow a very similar pattern. From this pattern
and also from testimony received at the hearing it appears that the company attorney
asked the following questions, among others, almost routinely:
1. Were you told by a union representative that the only purpose of signing a
union card was to get a Labor Board election?
-
2 Did you sign the card for this reason?
3. In signing the card did you believe you were applying for membership in the
Union?
4. In signing the card did you believe you were authorizing the Union to represent
you in bargaining for wages , hours and other conditions of employment?
5. Were you told by any union representative that the cards would be used to
request recognition without an election?
From the common pattern of the answers given to these questions and the fact that they
utilize terminology with which the employees were unfamiliar (this is clear from the em-
ployees' testimony at the hearing), I conclude that for the most part the employees gave
yes or no answers to the attorney's questions and that the language used in he statements
was largely the attorney's. This fact detracts from the usefulness of the statements even
as an aid to refreshing the witnesses' recollection at the hearing.
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO. 1021
to rid themselves of their fears that they may suffer in some way if they fully dis-
close the nature of their support of a union. This is particularly true in situations
like the present where the Company had so openly expressed its intense opposition
to the Union. Consequently in these situations employees are apt, when asked by
the company's attorney to discuss the nature of their association with a union, to
give an answer which is likely least to incur the employer's displeasure. So they min-
imize the extent of their support of the union.
Because of these factors I do not regard these statements as being sufficiently reli-
able in most cases to be used as a gauge against which to test the witnesses' testi•
mony on the witness stand. Nor do I believe that the truth is always forthcoming
when an employee, who at first testifies somewhat inconsistently with the statement,
belatedly acknowledges, when confronted with the statement, that the facts therein
set forth are true. It takes a rugged employee, indeed, when facing the company's
two top officials at counsel table, to admit from the witness stand that he had not
told the whole truth when interviewed by the company's attorney.
Aside from members of the organizing committee who heard Patrick make a sec-
ond talk to the committee members after the general meeting on January 12 was
over, who I find misconstrued Patrick's remarks at this second meeting, only two
employees gave testimony supporting the Company's "only for an election " conten-
tion in response to nonleading questions. These were Gene Brent, who was called by
the General Counsel, and William Lowman who was called by the Company. While
both Brent and Lowman had difficulty recalling all of the events at the meeting,
they both appeared to be testifying sincerely. However, in view of the testimony of
Bonitt, Patrick, and some others, including company witnesses, which is inconsis-
tent with the testimony of Brent and Lowman, and in view of certain circumstances
discussed below which are not controverted, I cannot give controlling effect to the
testimony of Brent and Lowman.
In addition to the "barebones" testimony in response to leading questions that
Patrick represented to the employees at the January 12 meeting that authorization
cards would be used only for the purpose of an election which is discussed above,
the Company also relies on the testimony concerning a question asked of Patrick
at the January 12 meeting as to whether employees signing union cards had to join
the Union. I have found, based on the fact that only those who attended the orga-
nizing committee meeting testified concerning such a question, that this question was
asked not at the general meeting, but at the subsequent committee meeting. Donald
Neuenschwander, one of the original supporters of the Union, testified in response
to a nonleading question that he thought he had asked Patrick at the January 12
meeting whether the employees, if they signed a card, had to join the Union. Patrick
replied according to Neuenschwander, "that it was just to get an election, in other
words, so they could bargain with the Union." Three witnesses for the Company, all
members of the Union's organizing committee, also gave testimony concerning the
question asked of Patrick at this meeting. These three witnesses were Elwyn Hart,
Gary Hinderliter, and Mary Silva. All testified in response to nonleading questions
that Patrick answered to the effect that the language on the card was not binding on
the signers, that the cards were only to see if enough employees were interested to
hold an election.
The testimony of Sandra Fraser (Soendker), another member of the . organizing
committee, concerning this question places a different light on Patrick's answer.
Fraser, when asked by the Company on direct examination whether any questions
were asked at the meeting about the wording on the cards, was unable to recall.
The Company then asked the following questions:
Q. You stated in Respondent's Exhibit 17, "Jay Dee Patrick told us the main
purpose was to keep things alive and keep things talked up, we were to ask
others to sign cards. The purpose for the cards was to see how many were
interested in an election. He was asked at the meeting about the language of
the card and if this restricted the signer, and he said the cards had nothing to
do with the membership." Do you recall that now?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the truth?
A. Yes.
When questioned by counsel for the Union, Fraser testified that Patrick explained
that "we would vote whether we wanted the Union first and then we would nomi-
nate a negotiating committee" to negotiate for "wages and benefits and everything."
In response to a question by the General Counsel as to whether Patrick had said
1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
anything about money, Fraser answered that "money wouldn't be involved until
after the election and we had the Union." Laura Jordan, another member of the
organizing committee, gave testimony concerning a similar question put to Patrick
at the second union meeting on January 19. It is not disputed that the same ques-
tions were asked at both meetings. Called as a witness by the Company, Jordan
testified as follows:
They was wondering-one in particular, one girl said she didn't like the way it
(the card) was worded so we asked about the wording on the thing and he
said it was just to get an election for now and we would join the union when
we had the contract negotiated and that the people had approved of the con-
tract they had negotiated for.
In resolving the conflict in the testimony concerning Patrick's statements at the
January 12 meeting I have taken into consideration the following uncontroverted
facts. Patrick read to the employees at the general meeting the text of the card
which states that the signers apply for membership in the Union and authorize it to
represent and negotiate for them regarding wages, hours, and other conditions of
employment. This appears wholly inconsistent, with holding out to the employees
that they should pay no attention to the language on the cards. It is also undisputed
that Patrick at the January 19 meeting read to the employees the letter which he
had sent to the Company requesting recognition upon the basis of the cards which
the Union had obtained during the past week. It seems unlikely to me that a union
representative who only a week earlier had represented to the employees that the
cards would be used only for an election would give publicity to an act, which if
the Company's position is sustained, amounted to an outright breach of faith.
There was no need for Patrick to make representations at the January 12 meeting
that the cards would be used only to obtain an election. These are the kind of repre-
sentations which are sometimes made by union organizers when they are failing to
obtain sufficient cards to meet their goal and the representation is then made in an
effort to persuade a few reluctant holdouts to sign cards. This was not the situation
at the January 12 meeting, far from it. Both Patrick and Bonitt were surprised by the
size of the, turnout on January 12. They had no reason at the start of the campaign,
in view of the large turnout at the meeting, to anticipate failure in the organizing
drive. Furthermore, in any organizing campaign, the Union' s interest is in gaining
converts to its cause and not merely in obtaining an election in which the employees
can. express their desires for or against union representation by secret ballot. The
logic of the situation, in my opinion, militates against Patrick's having made repre-
sentations which tended to defeat the Union's objectives in conducting the organiz-
ing drive.
Finally, there is no evidence that any of the card signers at any time withdrew or
revoked their bargaining authorization. The most that the record shows in this
respect is that one' employee, Ada Dill, made a halfhearted attempt to get her card
back but did not follow through on it. In view of the fact that the Company had
repeatedly requested employees to withdraw their union cards, the fact that none
did is significant. Such inaction in these circumstances is wholly inconsistent with
the Company's claim that a number of the employees signed cards only to give
themselves an opportunity later on in an election to decide whether they desired
representation by the Union. See Indiana Rayon Corp., 151 NLRB 130.
Viewing the conflicting testimony concerning Patrick's statements, at the Janu-
ary 12 meeting in the light of the considerations discussed above, I conclude, as
indicated above, that he did not represent either at the general meeting or the later
meeting of the organizing committee that the cards would be used only to obtain an
election . Rather I find, in accordance with the testimony of Patrick and Bonitt and
several of the employees, that Patrick, after reading the text of the card, explained
the procedure normally used in obtaining union recognition, stated that it would be
followed in this case, but that very likely the Union would have to go to an elecl-
tion. The card, of course, was an application for membership to be acted upon by
the Union in accordance with its usual procedures. Signing the card, as Patrick
explained , did not automatically constitute the signers dues-paying union members.
If, as he anticipated, the Union had to go to an election, the employees would have
a chance to vote in secret on whether they wanted union representation or not and
if the Union lost the election, the Union would abandon its organizing activities. It
is this aspect of Patrick's talk at the general meeting which, in my opinion, gave
rise to the confusion in the employees' minds about the binding effect of the cards.
If all went as anticipated and the election were held, as it in fact was, the employ-
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO. 1023
ees would have a chance to change their minds and vote against the Union. If the
Union lost the election, then the employees would not be bound to the Union
regardless of the fact that they had signed cards.
As indicated above, I further find accordance with the testimony to which I have
referred, that when at the subsequent meeting of the organizing committee the
question was raised as to the binding effect of the cards, Patrick explained that the
cards would be used first to obtain an election, that the signers of the cards would
not be joining the union at this time, that this would be deferred until after the
Union had won the election and had succeeded in negotiating a contract satisfac-
tory to the employees. In making this finding I do not wish to imply that Patrick
conveyed this idea to all his hearers without any confusion on their part. It is clear
to me that much confusion existed in the minds of the employees, including some
members of the organizing committee, and that some genuinely believed that
Patrick had expressly stated that the cards would be used only for the purpose of
an election and no other purpose. However, the question before me in ruling upon
the Company's general contention that most of the cards relied upon by the Union
are invalid because they were obtained through misrepresentations that they would
be used only for the purpose of an election is whether Patrick in fact made such
representations, regardless of the employees' understanding of his representations. I
find that Patrick made no such- representations. Accordingly, the Company's sweep-
ing general contention regarding the invalidity of 'the cards is rejected. The Com-
pany's further contentions concerning the invalidity of certain cards because of rep-
resentations made by union solicitors in individual cases are considered below.
(3) The Company's contentions regarding individual authorization cards
The Company does not make any specific objection (other than the general objec-
tion discussed in the preceding section), to the cards signed by the 62 employees
listed in Appendix C. However, with respect to the remaining employees whose
cards were received in evidence, the Company contends that their cards should not
be counted toward the Union's majority for one reason or another. In addition, the
Company challenges the bargaining authorization of Nancy Brown, listed on Ap-
pendix C, whose card became lost. Brown's credited testimony establishes that she
signed a card on January 7 and mailed it to the Union that night. I find that Brown
validly authorized the Union to act as her collective-bargaining agent.
To facilitate the discussion of the Company's contentions I treat the employees in
groups. I include in the first group those who attended the January 12 union meet-
ing and who signed cards given them that day, and as to whom the Company con-
tends that Patrick misrepresented the purpose of signing the cards and therefore
their cards should not be counted in ascertaining the Union's majority status. The
10 employees in this group are listed in Appendix D. My finding that Patrick did
not make any misrepresentations regarding the cards either at the general meeting
or the meeting of the organizing committee on that day disposes of the cases of
these 10 employees.
Special circumstances regarding the cases of some of the employees in this and
the other groups discussed below require individual treatment.
Charlotte Hopkins: I include in this group because the only testimony cited by the
Company in her case relates that what Patrick said at the January 12 meeting. How-
ever, the uncontradicted evidence is that Hopkins signed her card on January 9 and
there is no claim made that any misrepresentations were made to her before she
signed a card. -
Linda Scott: Although Linda Scott, a member of the union organizing commit-
tee, did not sign a card until January 15, I include her in this group because the
Company relies solely on Patrick's statements at the January 12 meeting as the
basis for urging that Scott's card should not be counted. There is no evidence of any
other representations made to her by any union solicitor before she signed a card.
I include in the next group of 18 employees who are, listed in Appendix E all
those as to whom I conclude there is no credible evidence of any representation
before they signed their cards of such nature as would warrant disregarding their
cards. As to a number of the employees in this group, the Company does not even
contend that union solicitors made any such misrepresentations to them, for the evi-
dence cited does not even suggest such fact. At most it indicates that the employee
or the solicitor entertained a belief that the only purpose of signing the cards was
to obtain an election. The question before me, however, is whether any union
solicitor made such misrepresentations to employees being solicited to sign authori-
zation cards as would warrant disregarding the employees ' act in signing an
1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unequivocal bargaining authorization card. It is the statement of the solicitor which
is material. Neither the belief of the solicitor nor the belief of the employee being
solicited, standing alone, has any relevance to the question before me. As to others
in this group, the evidence shows that statements were made by union solicitors to
the signers to the effect that the cards would be used to obtain an election. The
making of references to an election was only natural since the election was part
of the procedure which the- Union contemplated would have to be used to estab-
lish the Union's bargaining rights in the plant. As stated hereinabove, the making
of such statements alone does not justify nullifying otherwise valid bargaining
authorization cards.
Grace Campbell: As I construe her testimony, Campbell testified that the only
reason for signing a card stated by Larry Noble when he solicited her signature
was that "he had to have so many cards signed before we could have a vote on the
Union." This is not the kind of a representation which invalidates an otherwise
valid authorization card.
Donald Neuenschwander: The Company relies on Neuenschwander's testimony
as follows:
TRIAL EXAMINER: .. . who got you to sign?
The WITNESS: The name was Robert Repp . . . he explained to me, he says,
"This is not to join the union or anything," he says, "All this is for is to get
the union down here to talk to you." He says, "If you get so much per cent
it calls for an election." That is what the man stated to me.
The statement that the card would not effect Neuenschwander's membership in the
Union was not a misrepresentation. Under the Union's normal procedure, the
employees signing cards did not become members at that time. Whether they
became members depended, first, on the Union winning the election, and second,
on the Union's negotiating a contract acceptable to the employees. The remainder of
Repp's statement to Neuenschwander is not sufficient in my opinion to overcome
Neuenschwander's overt act in signing a card containing an express bargaining
authorization.32
Rachel Schultz: The Compay relies on Schultz' testimony that a woman whose
name she could not recall gave her a card and stated something to the following
effect: "You could sign the card and it would just be called-it would be so you
could vote for the union, if you wanted to, or not. That is the way I understand."
The foregoing vague statement by an undisclosed union solicitor in my opinion is
not sufficient to invalidate an otherwise valid authorization card.
I include in Appendix F the employees whom the Company claims were mis-
led into signing cards by misrepresentation to the effect that the cards were to
be used only for the purpose of obtaining an election and no other purpose, and
regarding whom I find that no such limiting representation was made. It is true as
to all of the employees in this category that some reference was made to an elec-
tion in the course of the solicitation of him to sign. However, with the exception
of Renate Kerwick whose case is discussed below, none of the employees listed in
Appendix F testified in their original examination by counsel for the Company as
to their being told by a union solicitor that the cards were for the limited purpose
of obtaining an election and for no other purpose. It was later, and only in response
to leading questions put by counsel for the Company, or when shown the question-
naire which contained leading questions, that an answer was elicited, which indi-
cated that the solicitor purportedly made the disqualifying representation that the
cards were only for the purpose of obtaining an election. In determining which
portion of the witness' testimony is more reliable, that given in response to non-
leading questions, I have taken into consideration the various factors discussed
in connection with the resolution of the credibility problems raised by the
conflicting testimony regarding Patrick's statements at the January 12 meeting. In
view of all these factors I conclude that the testimony of the employees listed in
Appendix F given in response to nonleading questions is more reliable, and that the
inconsistent testimony developed in response to leading questions should not be
given the effect of negativing the unequivocal bargaining authorization contained
on the face of the card. See N.L.R.B. v. Cumberland Shoe Corp., 351 F.2d 917,
919 (C.A. 6); General Steel Products, Inc., 157 NLRB 636.
32 Neuenschwander's support of the Union is established by reliable probative evidence.
Neuenschwander was one of the first employees to become interested in the Union. Patrick
had given him cards in December. Neuenschwander was the employee through whom
Patrick arranged the first union meeting on January 12.
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO. 1025
Sue Aggers: The Company points to Aggers" testimony that Lillian Criqui told
her, at some undisclosed time, possibly after she had signed a card, that "the only
purpose of signing a^ card was for an election ." The record shows, however, that it
was Nancy Brown, a member of the organizing committee, who solicited Aggers
to sign a card, and that Lillian Criqui was not on the organizing committee. Brown
did not make any representations to Aggers such as would invalidate her card.
Elwyn Hart: Hart did not, impress me as a credible witness in general. She
appeared over eager to give testimony favoring the Company. One moment she
testified that she told Schultz, Van Gordon, and Knouse the same thing about the
purpose of signing a card, i.e., "just to hold an election" and the next moment she
testified than she did not talk to any of them about signing cards. I do not credit
Hart's testimony, in response to counsel's somewhat leading question, that Neuen-
schwander told her when he solicited her to sign a card that the "sole purpose
was to hold an election."
Renate Kerwick: Kerwick was not given an opportunity to tell in her own words
what her solicitor had told her when she was asked to sign a card because counsel
for the Company at the outset asked Kerwick the following question to which an
objection was sustained: "At the time you signed this union card . . . did any of
the union representatives tell you it was for the sole purpose of getting a Labor
Board election?" Later, when asked by company counsel to relate the circum-
stances under which she signed a union card, Kerwick answered that Lila Benson
told her "it was merely to get a Labor Board election, that was the only reason we
should sign a card." I do not credit Kerwick's testimony as to what Benson told
her before signing a card. Not only was it responsive to a leading question which
suggested the critical part of the answer, but also Kerwick's testimony largely fol-
lows the pattern suggested by the Company's questionnaire . Of all the employees
who took the stand in this case she was the only one who testified that the repre-
sentation was made to her that if the Union got in the employees who failed to sign
cards might be the first to be laid off. A question regarding such a representation
was included in the Company's questionnaire. Considering Kerwick's testimony as
a whole, and in view of my observation of her demeanor on the stand, I find
Kerwick too amenable to suggestions to place any reliance on her testimony. Ker-
wick's testimony also demonstrates the obstacles to the ascertainment of the true
facts in this case resulting from the use of questionnaires such as were used by the
Company in this case.
Frances Knouse: Knouse testified in response to nonleading questions by com-
pany counsel that she believed that it was Elwyn Hart who gave her a union card.
Then the following testimony was elicited:
Q. Did she say anything to you about the card?
A. She said that the card was so that they could find out how many people
would maybe be interested in finding out about the union.
Q. Did she say anything else that you recall?
A. No.
Q. Did she say anything about an election?
A. She mentioned that they were going to have these cards to see how
many would be interested and maybe we could get an election.
Q. Did she say anything about the election being the purpose of the cards?
Mr. AUSLANDER: Objection, the witness has already answered the question.
TRIAL EXAMINER: You may continue.
(By Mr. ELLIOTT.) You may answer the question.
A. No.
Later, when questioned about statements made to her by Laura Jordan, Knouse
was unable to recall whether they were made before or after she signed a union
card. Then, after company counsel refreshed Knouse's recollection by showing her
the statement which she had given him after filling out the questionnaire, Knouse
gave the testimony upon which the Company now relies in which Knouse stated
that it was true, as stated in her statement, that Jordan had told her that "signing
the card was just to get an election in the plant." Upon consideration of Knouse's
testimony as a whole I am convinced that she had no recollection at the hearing
that Jordon actually made the statement in question to Knouse before Knouse
signed the card. Under all the circumstances I do not believe that Knouse 's uncer-
tain testimony regarding Jordan's purported statement to her is sufficient to require
the invalidation of Knouse's card.
264-188-67-vol. 161-66
1 026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Larry Lindemann: The Company cites the following testimony with respect to
Lindemann: 33
Q. (By Mr. ELLIOTT.) To refresh your recollection, did she [Laura Jordan]
tell you that the only reason for signing a card was to get an election?
A. I can't remember. She may have said that. Well, I asked quite a few
people, I can't remember who I asked. From what I recollect from people I
asked said it was to see if there was an election.
Q. That was the only purpose?
A. Yes.
When first asked what Laura Jordan had told him about the card, Lindemann
replied, "she didn't say anything." When asked whether Jordan had given a reason
for signing the card, Lindemann answered, "No, she didn't say a reason ." Then,
the questions first above quoted were asked and answered. I find the foregoing
testimony too vague concerning both the time when this statement was purportedly
made and also the precise nature of the representation made to warrant setting
aside Lindemann's action in signing a card expressly authorizing the Union to
represent him in collective bargaining.34
In the final group of employees, listed in Appendix G, are four employees as to
whom the record indicates that representations were made by union solicitors before
they signed cards, to the effect that the cards "were just to get the vote" or that
"the sole reason for signing was to get a Labor Board election." The cards of these
four employees will not be counted in ascertaining the Union's majority status.
b. Recapitulation
I have found that 100 employees listed on Appendixes C, D, E, and F executed
valid bargaining authorizations on or before January 19, 1965 (Appendix C, 62;
Appendix D, 10; Appendix E, 18; and Appendix F, 10). In addition , Anita Bitter,
who is not listed on any Appendix, also validly executed a bargaining authorization
card on January 13. These 101 employees constitute a majority of the employees
in the appropriate unit on January 20, 1965, when the Company received the
Union's letter requesting recognition and bargaining.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By threatening employees with loss of benefits or other reprisals because of
their union activities, granting a benefit to interfere with the employee's free choice
of representatives, and coercively questioning employees concerning union matters
the company has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees at the Company's Emporia,
Kansas, plant, excluding office clerical employees, salesmen, guards and super-
visors, as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
3. On and at all times since January 19, 1965, Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, has been the exclusive representative of the employees in
the aforesaid collective-bargaining unit.
"In its brief the Company inadvertently attributes this testimony to Lila Benson. I
assume that it would want to make the same contention with respect to Lindemann, and
am treating it accordingly.
"Laura Jordan testified as follows concerning her solicitation of Lindemann:
I told him that we was trying to get the people to sign the cards so we could have an
election in the plant and that there was no obligation to the union because we had
to have the election and sign the contract of negotiation before we would have to join
the union , approved by the people.
I find no misrepresentation involved in this statement. Jordan , like the other union
solicitors contemplated that it would be the election which would decide the question of
representation at the plant and that If the Union lost the election there would be no fur-
ther obligation to the Union. This is the way it would have turned out had the Union
lost the election and had not the Company, by its unfair labor practices , prevented the
employees from freely expressing their desires regaiding union representation.
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO. 1027
4. By refusing on and after January 20, 1965, to recognize and bargain collec-
tively with Amalagamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit,
the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1 ) of the Act.
5. By laying off Dale Haney, James Hayes, Royal Defoor , Dennis Mendoza,
Gary Wensuc, John Siebuhr, Bibiano Sanchez, and Wayne Stockebrand on Febru-
ary 19, 1965, the Company has discouraged membership in the Union by dis-
crimination in regard to their tenure or terms or conditions of employment , thereby
engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the
Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3 ), and (5 ) of the Act, my Recommended Order
will provide that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have found that the Company 's layoff of the eight employees on February 19,
1965, violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act. My Recommended Order will
provide for the reinstatement of all of the laid off employees except Bibiano San-
chez, with backpay from the date of the layoff to the date of the Company's offer
of reinstatement . In the case of Sanchez , his backpay will terminate on March 31,
1965, the date on which the Company discharged him. In computing backpay, any
employee's net interim earnings shall be taken into consideration , and the formula
set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-293, and Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, shall be followed. As to any employee to whom
the Company has made an offer of full and unconditional reinstatement to his
former or a substantially equivalent position (Chase National Bank of the City of
New York, The, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827, 828-829), the
Company need not make a second offer of reinstatement.
As indicated above, an order to bargain collectively with the Union is appropri-
ate to remedy the Company 's violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Even in the
absence of a refusal to bargain I would find this remedy appropriate in the circum-
stances of this case in view of the Company' s violations of Section 8(a)(1) and
( 3) of the Act, which prevented the employees from exercising a free choice of
representatives in the election . In view of my conclusions herein , my recommended
,order will provide for the dismissal of the pending representation proceeding, Case
17-RC-4687.
The unfair labor practices herein found , including discriminatory layoffs, are
such as to indicate an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act generally.
In these circumstances a broad cease-and-desist provision is necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record , and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The Respondent , Crawford Manufacturing Co., Inc ., Emporia, Kansas, its offi-
cers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with loss of benefits or other reprisals because of
their union activities , granting benefits to interfere with the employees' free choice
of representatives , coercively questioning employees concerning their union sympa-
thies or activities , or in any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in the Act.
(b) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit set forth in the conclusions of law above.
(c) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , by laying off, or in any other manner
discriminating against employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment.
1028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the
policies of the Act: -
(a) Upon request, recognize and bargain collectively with Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the appropriate unit set forth in the conclusions of law above.
(b) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, if it has not already done so, to Dale Haney, James Hayes,
Royal Defoor, Dennis Mendoza, Gary Wensuc, John Siebuhr, and Wayne Stocke-
brand, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make
each of them and Bibiano Sanchez whole for any loss of pay which he may have
suffered as a result of its discrimination against him , in the manner provided in
the section hereof entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Notify Dale Haney, James Hayes, Royal Defoor, Dennis Mendoza, Gary
Wensuc, John Siebuhr, and Wayne Stockebrand if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended, after their discharge from the Armed Forces.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and. all other records necessary to analyze the
amounts of backpay due.
(e) Post at its Emporia, Kansas, plant copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix A."35 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for Region 17, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the
Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify .the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith 3s
The petition for certification of representatives in Case 17-RC-4687 is hereby
dismissed.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of benefits or with reprisals
because of their union activities , grant benefits to interfere with the employees'
free choice of representatives , coercively question employees about their union
sympathies or activities , or in any other manner interfere with , restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in the Act.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, AFL-CIO , or in any other union , by laying off or otherwise discrimi-
nating against employees.
WE WILL, if we have not already done so, offer immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent jobs to Dale Haney, James
Hayes, Royal Defoor, Dennis Mendoza, Gary Wensuc, John Siebuhr, and
Wayne Stockebrand and will reimburse them and Bibiano Sanchez for any
loss of pay they ,may have suffered as a result of their layoff. WE WILL. notify
the above-named employees , excepting Bibiano Sanchez , if presently serving in
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words' "a Decision
and Order."
° In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO. 1029
the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Mili-
tary Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
WE WILL, upon request, recognize and bargain collectively with Amalga-
mated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative
of the employees in the appropriate unit set forth below:
All production and maintenance employees at our Emporia, Kansas, plant
excluding office clerical employees, salesman, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
All our employees have the right to form, join, or assist any labor union, or not
to do so.
CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 601 East
12th Street, 610 Federal Building, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, Telephone FR 4-
5282.
APPENDIX B
TO OUR CRAWFORD EMPLOYEES:
This investigation is being conducted by the attorney for the Company in con-
nection with unfair labor practice charges filed by the Amalgamated Clothing
Workers Union with the National Labor Relations Board. Whether you give the
information is entirely voluntary. This will have no effect on your job, and there
will be no reprisals by the Company against you one way or another. We wish to
assure you of this fact. We would appreciate having your answers to the following
questions: (Use other side of sheet if necessary.)
1. Did you sign a union card under any of the following conditions or promises
made to you by the Union or its agents? ------------
(a) that a majority of employees had already signed union cards?
------------
(b) that employees who did not sign union cards would lose their jobs?
------------
(c) that if you signed a card, wages and other benefits would positively be
increased and could not be reduced? ------------
(d) that the sale purpose of signing a card was to get a Labor Board elec-
tion? ------------
If your answers to any of the above questions are "yes," would you relate in
more detail what was said to you in this connection and by whom?
2. If you signed a union card, did you read what you were signing before you
signed it?
3. Did anyone from the Company or its supervisors question you about your
union sympathies or voting intentions? ------------- If so, please relate what was
said and by whom.
4. Did anyone from the Company or its supervisors ever tell you that (a) you
would lose wages and other benefits if the Union were chosen in the election?
____________ or (b) did they tell you that your wages and benefits would be
determined by negotiations? ------------ If your answer to (a) above is "yes,"
please explain fully what was said and by whom.
5. Did anyone from the Company or its supervisors tell you that they could dis-
cover how you voted, and that it would take action against those who voted for
the Union? ------------ If your answer is "yes," please explain fully what was
said and by whom.
6. Did anyone from the Company or its supervisors inform you that they were
aware of the employees' union activities and that they had kept union meetings
under surveillance? ------------ If your answer is "yes," please explain fully
what was said and by whom.
1030 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7. Did anyone from the Company or its supervisors tell you that it would not
engage in good faith bargaining in the event the Union won the election , or that
the plant would move? ----- ------- If your answer is "yes," please explain fully
what was said and by whom.
8. Did anyone from the Company or its supervisors make any other remarks to
you which you in any way regarded as interference , restraint , or coercion on you
or your right to organize ? ------------ If your answer is "yes," please explain
fully what was said and by whom.
I have read the above questions and have given the above answers. They are true
to the best of my knowledge and belief and they were given by me after the attor-
ney for the Company advised me that this information was voluntary on my part
and there would be no reprisals in any event.
----------------------------------
(Employee 's Signature)
This investigation is being conducted by the attorney for the Company in connec-
tion with unfair labor practice charges filed by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers
Union with the National Labor Relations Board. Whether you give the information
is entirely voluntary . This will have no effect on your job, and there will be no
reprisals by the Company against you one way or another . We wish to assure you
of this fact.
[Space left for statement.]
I have read the above and have given the above statement consisting of --------
pages. It is true and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief and was given
by me after the attorney for the Company advised me that this information was
voluntary on my part and there would be no reprisals in any event.
----------------------------------
(Employee's Signature)
APPENDIX C
1. Henry Anstaett 22. Sue Garrett 42. Jess Redding
2. Mary Aquilar 23. Dale Haney 43 Mildred Rhoads
3. Steve Barnaby 24. James Hayes 44. Victor Rodriquez
4. Robert Bastin 25. Roberta Heins 45. Virginia Schlageter
5 Lila Benson 26. Dewey Herron 46. Judith Schmidt
6. Susan Blount 27. Olive Hollar 47. Billy Seeley
7. Carol Bolen 28. Betty Howerton 48. L. J Siebuhr
8. M. Bucher 29. Phyllis Johnson 49. Betty Smith
9 Carol Byrd ( Yerkes) 30. Fred Kunkel 50. Charles Soendker
10. Donna Cahoon 31. Nancy Lowry 51. Charles Speer
11. Mary Cisneros 32. Jean McElfresh 52. Gary Speer
12 Mary Clements 33 Dennis Mendoza 53. Wayne Stockebrand
13. Mary Coffman 34. Gloria Mendoza 54 Robert Tucker
14. Gerald Combes 35. Chester Nelson 55. Beverly Tyson
15. Harlan Combes 36 Larry Noble 56. Carl Tyson
16. Lois Crawford 37. Pat Noble 57. Shirley Van Gorden
17. Lillian Criqui 38. Virginia Ogleby 58. Warren Vorhees, Sr.
18. Carl Cunningham 39. Margaret Peters 59. Jerry Wathen
19. Georgia Elbe 40. Harold Posey 60. Harley Wenderott
20. James Gamer 41. Peggy Price 61. Gary Wensuc
21. Margaret Garrett 62. James Whalen
APPENDIX D
1. Gene Brent 4. Wesley Kennison 8. Linda Scott
2 Gary Hinderliter 5 William Lowman 9. Mary Silva
3. Charlotte Hopkins 6. Lena Lynch 10 Clarence Soendker
7. Emelia Rangel
APPENDIX E
1. John Bastin 7. Sandra Fraser (Soendker ) 13. Cecil Nichols
2 Wilma Bischoff 8. Lois Laura Jordan 14. Marv Peet
3. Shirley Brockleman (Jones) 9 John Joss 15 Shirley Poff
4 Nancy Brown 10. Ella Lawson 16. Rosa Powell
5. Grace Campbell 11. Ruth Long 17. Rachel Schultz
6. Roberta Dowell 12. Donald Neuenschwander 18 Marcia Scott
OAK PARK MOTORS, INC.
APPENDIX F
1031
1. Sue Aggers 4. Elwyn Hart 8. Larry Lindermann
2. James Baxter 5 . Renate Kerwick 9. Betty Loucks
3. Ada Dill 6 . Frances Knouse 10. Sharon Moss
7. Nellie Lewis
APPENDIX G
1. Lois Jarvis 2. James King 4. Lois Wagner
3. Melvin Lowman
Oak Park Motors, Inc., Fencl -Bogan Chevrolet , Inc., and Supe-
rior Motor Sales, Inc. and Automobile Salesmen's Union
of Chicago and Vicinity . Cases 13-CA-4831, 4833, and 4834.
November 15, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 16, 1966, Trial Examiner Charles W. Schneider issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and Recommended Order and
the General Counsel filed a reply brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the Respondents' exceptions and the General
Counsel's reply brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 4, 1962, following the filing of unfair labor practice charges by Auto-
mobile Salesmen 's Union of Chicago and Vicinity , the Union , the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board , by the Regional Director for Region 13,
issued complaints and orders consolidating for the purpose of hearing proceedings
161 NLRB No. 96.